[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28797-28807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10894]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0501; FRL-9946-14-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Disapproval; North Carolina: New Source
Review for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, changes to the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), provided by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) through the
Division of Air Quality, to EPA in submittals dated May 16, 2011 (two
separate submittals), and September 5, 2013. These SIP submittals
modify North Carolina's New Source Review (NSR)--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR)--permitting regulations and include the adoption of some federal
requirements regarding implementation of the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
through the NSR permitting program. As a result of the proposed
disapproval of a portion of the State's NSR requirements, EPA is also
proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, the PSD
elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008
lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
and to convert the Agency's previous conditional approvals of the PSD
elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to
partial approvals and partial disapprovals. This proposed partial
disapproval, if finalized, will trigger the requirements for EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years
from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the
deficiencies through a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP revision
before EPA promulgates such a FIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0501 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey of the Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS
III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's May 16, 2011, and
September 5, 2013, SIP submittals addressing NSR requirements?
A. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule
B. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule
C. North Carolina's Miscellaneous SIP Submittal Changes
Regarding the NSR Program
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittals?
A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 2008 Lead,
2008 8-Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS
B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
EPA is proposing four actions, some with multiple parts, with
regard to North Carolina's SIP submittals updating the State's PSD and
NNSR regulations found at 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
02D .0530 and 15A NCAC 02D .0531.\1\ First, EPA is proposing to approve
a May 16, 2011, SIP submittal from North Carolina (as revised and
updated by the State's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) as meeting the
requirements of EPA's rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
[[Page 28798]]
(PM2.5);'' Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (hereafter
referred to as the ``2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North Carolina's preconstruction permitting program for new
and modified stationary sources is codified at 15A NCAC Subchapter
02D. Specifically, North Carolina's PSD preconstruction regulations
are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and apply to major stationary
sources or modifications constructed in areas designated attainment
or unclassifiable/attainment for the NAAQS, as required under part C
of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). North Carolina's NNSR
regulations are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0531 and apply to the
construction and modification of any major stationary source of air
pollution in or impacting upon a NAAQS nonattainment area, as
required by Part D of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, EPA is proposing to disapprove North Carolina's September
5, 2013, SIP submittal with regard to changes to the State's regulation
at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 because North Carolina's changes do not fully
meet the requirements of EPA's rulemaking, ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),'' Final Rule, 75 FR 64864
(October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as the ``2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule'').
Third, EPA is proposing to approve administrative changes to North
Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and 15A NCAC
02D .0531 provided by the State in a SIP submittal also dated May 16,
2011, including clarification of the applicability of best available
control technology (BACT) and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
for electrical generating units (EGUs) in the State, and the inclusion
of an additional Federal Land Manager (FLM) notification provision.
Lastly, as a result of the proposed disapproval of a portion of the
State's NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to approve, in part, and
disapprove, in part, the PSD elements of the North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone,
2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and to convert the Agency's previous conditional approvals of the
PSD elements of the North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS to partial approvals and partial disapprovals.
II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS
``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets.
Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including
acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and
soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to
their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about
particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those
are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and
enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and
lungs and cause serious health effects. EPA groups particle pollution
into two categories:
``Inhalable coarse particles,'' or PM10, are
particles larger than 2.5 micrometers but smaller than 10 micrometers
in diameter. Inhalable coarse particles can be directly emitted from
sources such as roadways and industries that create dusty emissions.
``Fine particles,'' or PM2.5, are solid or
liquid particles that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. Fine
particles can be directly emitted from sources such as industrial
processes, diesel and gasoline engines, and wildfires, or they can be
formed in the atmosphere secondarily as a result of chemical reactions
between specific pollutants (known as PM2.5 precursors) that
are emitted primarily from mobile and stationary combustion sources.
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires EPA to set air quality
standards to protect both public health and the public welfare (e.g.,
visibility, crops and vegetation). Particle pollution, especially fine
particles, affects both. The human health effects associated with long-
or short-term exposure to PM2.5 are significant and include
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits) and development of chronic respiratory disease. In
addition, welfare effects associated with elevated PM2.5
levels include visibility impairment as well as effects on sensitive
ecosystems, materials damage and soiling and climatic and radiative
processes.
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new standards
for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator. See 62 FR
38652. Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable particles
smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator
for the PM NAAQS. EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 24-
hour standards for PM2.5, setting an annual standard at a
level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour
standards at a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\. Id. At the time EPA
established the 1997 primary standards, EPA also established welfare-
based (secondary) standards identical to the primary standards. Id. The
secondary standards are designed to protect against major environmental
effects of PM2.5, such as visibility, impairment, soiling,
and materials damage. Id. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary
and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. See 71 FR 61236. In that
rulemaking, EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35
[micro]g/m\3\ and retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15 [micro]g/m\3\. Id. On December 14, 2012, the EPA Administrator
signed a final rule revising the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12
[micro]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, section 110(a) of
the CAA obligates states to submit SIP revisions that provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS within three years following promulgation of such NAAQS--the so-
called infrastructure SIP revisions. Although states typically have met
many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submittals in connection with previous PM
standards, states were still required to submit SIP revisions that
address section 110(a)(2) for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's May 16, 2011, and
September 5, 2013, SIP submittals addressing NSR requirements?
North Carolina provided its May 16, 2011, and September 5, 2013,
SIP submittals to, among other things, comply with federal permitting
requirements related to implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS
through the NSR program. The relevant federal PM2.5
permitting requirements for SIPs, set forth in 40 CFR 51.165 and
51.166, were promulgated by EPA in the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule and the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. States were
required to make their SIP submittals to address the requirements of
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule no later than May 16,
2011, and to make their submittals to address the requirements of the
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule no later than July 20, 2012.
A. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule
North Carolina submitted its SIP to comply with the requirements of
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule on May 16, 2011.
Subsequently, on September 5, 2013, North Carolina submitted an update
to its original submittal to correct a deficiency related to the
significant emission rate for nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a
precursor to PM2.5 formation. Background on the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and EPA's analysis of North
Carolina's SIP submittals to comply with that rule is provided below.
1. Background on EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the NSR
[[Page 28799]]
permitting program. See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule revised the federal NSR program requirements to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment
areas. Among other things, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule required
states to incorporate into their SIPs the following components of the
NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) The requirement for NSR
permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor
pollutants that contribute to the secondary formation of
PM2.5; (2) significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants that lead to the secondary
formation of PM2.5 (including SO2,
NOX, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) \2\); (3) NNSR
PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) the requirement for
applicability determinations and emission limits in PSD and NNSR
permits to account for gases that condense to form particles
(condensables) in PM2.5 and PM10.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, VOC is presumed
not to be a precursor to PM2.5 unless the state
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates
that emissions of VOC from sources in a specific area are a
significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
\3\ Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation
Rule authorized states to adopt provisions in their nonattainment
NSR rules that allowed for ``interpollutant trading'' for emission
offsets. Specifically, the rule authorized states to allow new major
stationary sources and major modifications in PM2.5
nonattainment areas to offset increases of direct PM2.5
emissions or PM2.5 precursors with reductions of either
direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors in
accordance with interpollutant offset ratios contained in the area's
approved SIP. North Carolina elected not to include interpollutant
trading ratios in its final SIP submittals and therefore will not be
implementing interpollutant trading at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal (as revised by the
State's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) addresses the PSD and NNSR
provisions established in EPA's May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule. Two key issues, the NSR PM2.5
litigation and condensable particulate matter emissions, are described
in greater detail below.
a. NSR PM2.5 Litigation
On January 4, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (hereafter referred to as the DC Circuit
or Court) issued a judgment \4\ that remanded two of EPA's rules
promulgated for implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
including the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule. See
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the
PM2.5 NAAQS in these rules solely pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA,
rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions
specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. EPA
had developed the NNSR requirements in the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule pursuant to the general nonattainment requirements
of subpart 1 of Part D, title I, of the CAA. Relative to subpart 1,
subpart 4 of Part D, title I includes additional provisions that apply
to PM10 nonattainment and is more specific about what states
must do to bring areas into attainment. In particular, subpart 4
includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the
court decision, PM2.5 precursors) ``except where the
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in
the area.'' The Court found that subpart 4 applies to PM2.5
nonattainment and ordered EPA to repromulgate the 2008 PM2.5
Implementation Rule pursuant to subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, American
Lung Association, and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air challenged
before the DC Circuit EPA's April 25, 2007, Rule entitled ``Clean
Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,'' 72 FR 20586, which
established detailed implementation regulations to assist states
with the development of SIPs to demonstrate attainment for the 1997
Annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the separate May 16,
2008, NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule (which is considered
in this proposed rulemaking). This proposed rulemaking only pertains
to the impacts of the Court's decision on the May 16, 2008, NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule promulgated new
NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both
nonattainment areas (NNSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD).
As Subpart 4 includes requirements only pertinent to nonattainment
areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas
to be affected by the Court's opinion.
On June 2, 2014, EPA published a final rule \5\ which, in part, set
a December 31, 2014, deadline for states to make any remaining required
SIP submittals needed for an attainment plan or the NNSR program,
pursuant to and considering the application of subpart 4. See 79 FR
31566. Requirements under subpart 4 for a moderate nonattainment area
are generally comparable to subpart 1, including: (1) CAA section
189(a)(1)(A) (NNSR permit program); (2) section 189(a)(1)(B)
(attainment demonstration or demonstration that attainment by the
applicable attainment date is impracticable); (3) section 189(a)(1)(C)
(reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control
technology; and (4) section 189(c) (reasonable further progress and
quantitative milestones). The additional requirements pursuant to
subpart 4 as opposed to subpart 1 correspond to section 189(e)
(precursor requirements for major stationary sources). Further
additional SIP planning requirements are introduced by subpart 4 in the
event that a moderate nonattainment area is reclassified to a serious
nonattainment area, or in the event that the moderate nonattainment
area needs additional time to attain the NAAQS. The additional
requirements under subpart 4 are not applicable for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) in any area that has submitted a complete
redesignation request prior to the due date for those requirements;
therefore, EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements for
moderate nonattainment areas that have submitted a redesignation
request prior to December 31, 2014, or for any area that has already
been redesignated to attainment. See 79 FR at 31570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The rule is titled ``Identification of Nonattainment
Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,'' Final Rule, 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
This final rule also identifies the initial classification of
current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as
moderate and the EPA guidance and relevant rulemakings that are
currently available regarding implementation of subpart 4
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two areas were initially designated nonattainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in North Carolina: The Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point Area (hereafter referred to as the Greensboro Area)
\6\ and the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir Area (hereafter referred to as the
Hickory Area).\7\ On December 18, 2009 (later supplemented on December
22, 2010), NC DEQ \8\ submitted redesignation requests for the
Greensboro Area and the Hickory Area. These requests were granted, and
the Greensboro Area and the Hickory Area were both redesignated to
attainment on November 18, 2011. See 76 FR 71455 and 76 FR 71452,
respectively. Because the counties comprising these areas have been
redesignated to attainment,
[[Page 28800]]
and no portions of North Carolina were designated nonattainment for
either the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, the State has no existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
Therefore, the State is not currently required to regulate
PM2.5 as part of its NNSR permitting program and,
accordingly, the State did not need to submit additional SIP elements
for PM2.5 to satisfy the Subpart 4 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The nonattainment area for the Greensboro Area for the 1997
PM2.5 standard was comprised of Guilford and Davidson
counties.
\7\ The nonattainment area for the Hickory Area for the 1997
PM2.5 standard was comprised of Catawba County only.
\8\ Formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Condensables
In the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA revised the definition
of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' for PSD by adding paragraph
51.166(b)(49)(vi), which provided that ``particulate matter (PM)
emissions, PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions''
shall include gaseous emissions from a source or activity which
condense to form PM at ambient temperatures and that on or after
January 1, 2011, such condensable PM shall be accounted for in
applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations
for PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in permits. See 73 FR at
28335. A similar paragraph revised the definition of ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' in the NNSR rule but specified applicability to only
``PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions'' and not to
``particulate matter (PM) emissions.'' See 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D).
Subsequently, EPA concluded that the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Rule's requirement that the measurement of ``particulate matter
emissions'' (as opposed to PM2.5 or PM10) must
include the condensable fraction of primary PM was an inadvertent
error. On October 25, 2012, EPA corrected this inadvertent error by
revising the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' contained in the
regulations for PSD at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, and in EPA's Emission
Offset Interpretative Ruling at 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S. See 77 FR
65107. In taking that action, EPA explained that requiring inclusion of
condensable PM in measurements of ``particulate matter emissions''
would have little if any effect on preventing significant air quality
deterioration or on efforts to attain the primary and secondary PM
NAAQS. See 77 FR at 65112. Thus, as revised, the federal PSD
regulations do not require the inclusion of condensable PM in
measurements of ``particulate matter emissions,'' except where either
the applicable NSPS compliance test includes the condensable PM
fraction or the applicable implementation plan requires the condensable
PM fraction to be counted. Id.
North Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal (as updated by the
September 5, 2013, submittal) adopts EPA's definition for ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' requiring states to consider condensables (at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi)). However, because the State's submittal adopts the
definitions in the CFR as of May 16, 2008 (prior to EPA's correction),
the State's rule requires sources to account for the condensable
fraction in the measurement and regulation of ``PM emissions'' as well
as ``PM2.5 emissions'' and ``PM10 emissions.'' As
explained above, this difference between North Carolina's regulations
and the current federal PSD regulations does not impact North
Carolina's efforts to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
or to attain and maintain compliance with the PM NAAQS.
2. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
In a May 16, 2011, SIP submittal intended to satisfy the State's
obligations under the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, North
Carolina proposed to incorporate by reference (IBR) into North
Carolina's SIP, with one exception, the relevant portions of the
federal PSD and NNSR permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165
effective as of May 16, 2008.\9\ Specifically, North Carolina's May 16,
2011, submittal incorporates by reference into North Carolina's PSD
regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (state effective date January 2,
2011) and into North Carolina's NNSR regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0531
(state effective date January 2, 2011) the following PSD and NNSR
provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation
Rule: (1) The requirement for PSD and NNSR permits to address directly
emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (SO2 and
NOX (as codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C) and
51.166(b)(49)); (2) the significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutant (SO2) (as codified
at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i)); (3) the NNSR
PM2.5 emission offsets (as codified at 51.165(9)(i)); and
(4) the PSD and NNSR requirement that condensable PM, PM10
and PM2.5 emissions be accounted in PSD applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for permitting
(as codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D) and 51.166(b)(49)).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Paragraph (w) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (effective date January
2, 2011) and Paragraph (o) of 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (effective date
January 2, 2011) states: ``The reference to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) in this Rule are incorporated by reference unless
a specific reference states otherwise. Except for 40 CFR 81.334, the
version of the CFR incorporated in this Rule is that as of May 16,
2008, and does not include any subsequent amendments or editions to
the referenced material.''
\10\ As discussed above, on October 25, 2012, EPA removed the
requirement that condensable PM be included in measurements of
``particulate matter emissions.'' See 77 FR 65107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one exception to North Carolina's IBR of relevant requirements
from the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule in the State's
May 16, 2011, submittal is the significant emissions rate for
NOX as a precursor to the secondary formation of
PM2.5. Specifically, instead of incorporating the 40 tons
per year (tpy) significant emission rate for NOX as a
PM2.5 precursor (set forth at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and
40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i)), the state regulations included in North
Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal set the rate at 140 tpy for both
PSD and NNSR (at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(b)(4) and 15A NCAC 02D
.0531(a)(3)).
As mentioned above, in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA
promulgated final rules governing the implementation of NSR program for
PM2.5 including adding significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and their precursors of SO2 and
NOX. EPA's permitting program uses significant emission
rates to determine the applicability of major NSR requirements to
existing sources undergoing modifications. Specifically, EPA
established the federal definition of ``significant'' for
PM2.5 is 40 tpy for NOX unless it is demonstrated
not to be a PM2.5 precursor as provided under the definition
of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant.'' See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and
51.166(b)(23)(i). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166, a SIP can be more
stringent than required by 40 CFR 51.166 but not less stringent. Under
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule, unless the state
demonstrates that NOX is not a significant contributor to
PM2.5 in a specific area, the significance threshold for
NOX as a PM2.5 precursor can be no higher than 40
tpy. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i). North Carolina did not submit a
demonstration that NOX is not a significant contributor to
PM2.5 formation in the State. Thus, North Carolina's
adoption of a significant emission rate of 140 tpy for NOX
as a precursor to PM2.5 in its May 16, 2011, SIP submittal
is inconsistent with the federal requirements.
In a subsequent SIP submittal, dated September 5, 2013, North
Carolina revised the significant emission rate for NOX as a
PM2.5 precursor. Specifically, North Carolina submitted
updated versions of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (state effective date September
1, 2013) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state effective date September 1,
2013) that IBR the
[[Page 28801]]
federal rate of 40 tpy for NOX as a PM2.5
precursor into the North Carolina. See 15A NCAC 02D .0530(b)(4) (PSD
regulations) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531(a)(3) (NNSR regulations).
Therefore, the 140 tpy significant emission rate for NOX as
a PM2.5 precursor originally proposed in North Carolina's
May 16, 2008, SIP submittal has been replaced and is no longer before
the Agency for review and consideration.
EPA notes that North Carolina's submittal contains provisions
relevant to nonattainment NSR programs for PM2.5
nonattainment areas. Specifically, in the definition of ``regulated NSR
pollutant,'' the submittal provides that SO2 is a
PM2.5 precursor, NOX is presumed to be a
PM2.5 precursor, and VOCs and ammonia are presumed to not be
PM2.5 precursors. This provision is consistent with the
nonattainment NSR regulations promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5
NSR Implementation Rule. However, as mentioned above, on January 4,
2013, the DC Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706
F.3d at 428, issued a decision that remanded the 2008 PM2.5
NSR Implementation Rule back to EPA. The Court held that the provisions
of subpart 4 of the CAA apply in areas designated nonattainment for a
PM2.5 NAAQS. These subpart 4 requirements, as applied to
PM2.5, include section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the
control of major stationary sources of PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 precursors, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC,
and ammonia, in PM2.5 nonattainment areas unless the
Administrator determines that such sources of a particular precursor do
not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the standard in the
nonattainment area.
Although the State's submittal only requires regulation of
SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors in its
NNSR permitting program, the State of North Carolina has no
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Accordingly, EPA finds it
reasonable to conclude that major sources of VOCs and ammonia currently
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 nonattainment
within the State. Thus, there is no need at this time for the State to
regulate VOCs or ammonia as PM2.5 precursors in the State's
nonattainment NSR permitting program, and this issue does not prevent
EPA from approving the PM2.5 precursor provisions in North
Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal (as revised by the State's
September 5, 2013 submittal). Should EPA in the future designate an
area in North Carolina as nonattainment for PM2.5, the State
would have the obligation to submit a SIP revision demonstrating that
the nonattainment NSR program meets all applicable requirements for
PM2.5, including appropriate control of major sources of
PM2.5 precursors under 189(e). See CAA sections 172(c)(5)
and 189(a)(1)(A), (2)(B).
EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's May 16,
2011, SIP submittal, as updated by the September 5, 2013 SIP submittal,
satisfies the requirements of the 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule. Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina's submittal (as updated) and to incorporate 15A NCAC 02D .0530
(state effective date September 1, 2013) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state
effective date September 1, 2013) into North Carolina's SIP, with the
exception of certain regulatory provisions identified and discussed
below.
B. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule
North Carolina submitted its SIP to comply with the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule on September 5, 2013. Background on the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule and EPA's analysis of North Carolina's SIP
submittal to comply with that rule is provided below.
1. Background on EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule
a. Requirements of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule for PSD SIP
Programs
EPA finalized the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule to provide
additional regulatory requirements under the PSD SIP program regarding
the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR at 64864.
The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule required states to submit SIP
revisions to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting provisions equivalent to or
at least as stringent as the PSD increments and associated implementing
regulations. Specifically, the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule requires
states to adopt and submit for EPA approval into their SIP the
numerical PM2.5 increments promulgated pursuant to section
166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
in areas meeting the NAAQS. States are also required to adopt and
submit for EPA approval revisions to the definitions for ``major source
baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area''
as part of the implementing regulations for the PM2.5
increment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule also gave states
discretion to adopt PM2.5 SILs and a SMC. See 75 FR at
64900. On January 22, 2013, the DC Circuit vacated and remanded to
EPA the portions of 50 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 addressing the
PM2.5 SILs and also vacated the parts of the rule that
established the PM2.5 SMC. North Carolina's September 5,
2013, submittal does not include SILs or SMC so these regulatory
provisions are not relevant to today's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Requirement for PM2.5 Increments
As established in part C of title I of the CAA, EPA's PSD program
protects public health from adverse effects of air pollution by
ensuring that construction of new major sources or modifications in
attainment or unclassifiable areas does not lead to significant
deterioration of air quality while simultaneously ensuring that
economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with preservation of
clean air resources. Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit
applicant must demonstrate that emissions from the proposed
construction and operation of a facility ``will not cause, or
contribute to, air pollution in excess of any maximum allowable
increase or allowable concentration for any pollutant.'' In other
words, when a source applies for a permit to emit a regulated pollutant
in an area that is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for a
NAAQS, the state and EPA must determine if emissions of the regulated
pollutant from the source will cause significant deterioration in air
quality. Significant deterioration occurs when the amount of the new
pollution exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which is the ``maximum
allowable increase'' of an air pollutant allowed to occur above the
applicable baseline concentration \12\ for that pollutant. Therefore,
an increment is the mechanism used to estimate ``significant
deterioration'' of air quality for a pollutant in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is
generally the air quality at the time of the first application for a
PSD permit in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of calculating increment consumption, a baseline area
for a particular pollutant includes the attainment or unclassifiable
area in which the source is located, as well as any other attainment or
unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions of that pollutant
are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in a significant
ambient pollutant increase. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii). Once the
baseline area is established, subsequent PSD sources locating in that
area need to consider that a portion of the available increment may
have already been consumed by previous emissions increases.
In general, the submittal date of the first complete PSD permit
application in a particular area is the operative ``baseline date''
after which new sources must evaluate increment
[[Page 28802]]
consumption.\13\ On or before the date of the first complete PSD
application, emissions generally are considered to be part of the
baseline concentration from which increment consumption is calculated,
except for certain changes in emissions from major stationary sources.
Emissions increases that occur after the baseline date will be counted
toward the amount of increment consumed. Similarly, emissions decreases
after the applicable baseline date restore or expand the amount of
increment that is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Baseline dates are pollutant-specific. That is, a complete
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In practice, three dates related to the PSD baseline concept are
important in understanding how to calculate the amount of increment
consumed--(1) trigger date; (2) major source baseline date; and (3)
minor source baseline date. The first relevant date is the trigger
date. The trigger date, as the name implies, is a fixed date that
triggers the overall increment consumption process nationwide. See 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii). The two remaining dates--``major source baseline
date'' and ``minor source baseline date''--are necessary to properly
account for the emissions that are to be counted toward the amount of
increment consumed following the national trigger date, in accordance
with the statutory definition of ``baseline concentration'' in section
169(4) of the Act. The ``major source baseline date,'' which precedes
the trigger date, is the date after which actual changes in emissions
associated with construction at any major stationary source affect the
PSD increment. Such changes in emissions are not included in the
baseline concentration, even if the changes in emissions occur before
the minor source baseline date. In accordance with the statutory
definition of ``baseline concentration'' at section 169(4), the PSD
regulations define a fixed date to represent the major source baseline
date for each pollutant for which an increment exists. The ``minor
source baseline date'' is the earliest date after the trigger date on
which a source or modification submits the first complete application
for a PSD permit in a particular area. This is the date on which the
baseline concentration is generally established. After the minor source
baseline date, any change in actual emissions (from both major and
minor sources) affects the PSD increment for that area.
Once the minor source baseline date is established, the new
emissions increase from the major source submitting the first PSD
application consumes a portion of the increment in that area, as do any
subsequent actual emissions increases that occur from any new or
existing source in the area. When the maximum pollutant concentration
increase defined by the increment has been reached, additional PSD
permits cannot be issued until sufficient amounts of the increment are
``freed up'' via emissions reductions that may occur voluntarily (e.g.,
via source shutdowns) or by mandatory control requirements imposed by
the reviewing authority. Moreover, the air quality in a region cannot
deteriorate to a level in excess of the applicable NAAQS, even if all
the increment in the area has not been consumed. Therefore, new or
modified sources located in areas where the air pollutant
concentrations are near the level allowed by the NAAQS may not have
full use of the amount of pollutant concentration increase allowed by
the increment.
In the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, pursuant to the authority
under section 166(a) of the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical increments
for PM2.5 as a new pollutant \14\ for which NAAQS were
established after August 7, 1977,\15\ and derived 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 increments for the three area classifications (Class
I, II and III). See 75 FR at 64869 and the ambient air increment table
at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). EPA also established the PM2.5
``trigger date'' as October 20, 2011 (40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c)), and
the PM2.5 ``major source baseline date'' as October 20, 2010
(40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). See 75 FR at 64903. Finally, EPA amended the
term ``baseline area'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) to include a level of
significance of 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\, annual average, for establishing a new
baseline area for purposes of PM2.5 increments. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained
the Annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 (retaining
PM10 as an indicator of coarse particulate matter) and
treated PM2.5 as a new pollutant for purposes of
developing increments. See 75 FR at 64864.
\15\ EPA interprets section 166(a) to authorize EPA to
promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the
requirements of section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for
which EPA promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding
the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule
North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal adopts into the
State's PSD permitting program at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 changes purporting
to meet the requirements for PM2.5 increments in EPA's 2010
PSD PM2.5 Rule. However, while North Carolina's revised PSD
regulations incorporate the numerical PM2.5 increments at
paragraphs (q) and (v) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530, the regulations do not
include other key regulatory provisions needed to implement the
PM2.5 increments in accordance with federal requirements.
Specifically, North Carolina's changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 fail to
incorporate the following federal requirements pertaining to
implementation of PM2.5 increments: (1) the definition of
``[m]ajor source baseline date'' for PM2.5 codified at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) (defined as October 20, 2010); (2) the
definition of ``[m]inor source baseline date'' for PM2.5
codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c) (which establishes the
PM2.5 trigger date as October 20, 2011); and (3) the
definition of ``[b]aseline area'' codified at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(15)(i).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ North Carolina's draft revisions to 15A NCAC 02D .0530
would have used incorporation by reference (IBR) to adopt the
federal regulations in the CFR as of October 20, 2010. In the final
regulations, however, North Carolina chose to retain the former IBR
date of May 16, 2008. North Carolina also chose in the final
regulations to incorporate the numerical PM2.5 increments
directly into the text of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 rather than to
incorporate the increments by reference. However, North Carolina's
decision to IBR the provisions in the 2008 CFR rather than the
provisions in the 2010 CFR meant that North Carolina did not adopt
into its regulations the definitions of ``major source baseline,''
``minor source baseline,'' and ``baseline area'' that EPA
promulgated in the 2010 PSD PM2.5 rule. Rather, North
Carolina adopted the definition of these terms as they appeared in
the version of the CFR in effect as of May 16, 2008. Thus, the
definition of ``major source baseline date'' incorporated into 15A
NCAC 02D .0530 does not include the federally required
PM2.5 major source baseline date of October 20,
2010, but instead states: ``In the case of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide, January 6, 1975.'' Likewise, the
definition of ``minor source baseline date'' incorporated into 15A
NCAC 02D .0530 does not include the federally required
PM2.5 trigger date of October 20, 2011, but instead
states: ``In the case of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide,
August 7, 1977.'' It is EPA's understanding that North Carolina
interprets the term ``particulate matter'' in these definitions to
encompass PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without the federally required definitions of ``major source
baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area''
set forth in the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, North Carolina's PSD
regulations do not require PSD sources to conduct the appropriate
analyses demonstrating that emissions from proposed construction of
major sources
[[Page 28803]]
or modifications will not cause or contribute to air pollution beyond
the PM2.5 increment. While a State has the option of
demonstrating that it has alternative measures in its plan other than
the PM2.5 increment requirements that satisfy the prevention
of significant deterioration requirements under sections 166(c) and
166(d) of the CAA (see 40 CFR 51.166(c)(2)), North Carolina did not
offer any such demonstration in connection with its September 5, 2013,
SIP submittal. Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of
North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal pertaining to
adoption and implementation of the PM2.5 PSD increments on
the basis that, taken as a whole, they are insufficient to satisfy the
federal PM2.5 PSD increment requirements set forth in the
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. Specifically, EPA proposes to
disapprove the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), and
(v) that pertain to the PM2.5 increments.\17\ EPA notes that
while the numerical PM2.5 increments at paragraphs (q) and
(v) correctly reflect the numerical PM2.5 increments
required by EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, EPA proposes to
disapprove these provisions because North Carolina cannot properly
apply the PM2.5 increments without adopting the associated
definitions of ``major source baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline
date,'' and ``baseline area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Paragraph (v) establishes the numerical PM2.5
increments. Paragraph (q) addresses the Class I PM2.5
variances. Paragraph (e) incorporates paragraph (v) by reference.
EPA is proposing to disapprove 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e),
(q), and (v) in part, rather than in their entirety, because the
paragraphs also include previously approved PM10
increment requirements. Specifically, in addition to making the
PM2.5-related changes to these paragraphs, North Carolina
also revised 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), and (v), to
directly incorporate the PM10 increments. Previously,
North Carolina had incorporated the PM10 increments into
15A NCAC 02D .0530 by reference to the CFR. EPA is proposing to
approve the PM10-related changes to paragraphs (e), (q),
and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. North Carolina's Miscellaneous SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the
NSR Program
In addition to providing SIP submittals to comply with the 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 2010 PSD PM2.5
Rule, North Carolina provided administrative changes in the second of
two May 16, 2011, SIP submittals (henceforth, the second May 16, 2011,
SIP submittal) and in the September 5, 2013, SIP submittal, for the
State's NSR regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D
.0531 (NNSR). First, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP
submittal makes changes to clarify that BACT for PSD and LAER for NSR
applies to all new natural gas-fired EGUs for which cost recovery is
sought under the State's Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA). North Carolina's
intended purpose for the rule clarification is to ensure that new-
natural gas-fired EGUs that claim cost recovery pursuant to the CSA
will not utilize the emission reductions to avoid BACT or LAER under
the PSD or NNSR programs, respectively. EPA is proposing to approve
this change to North Carolina's SIP for both rules 15A NCAC 02D .0530
and 15A NCAC 02D .0531.
Second, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal revises
15A NCAC 02D .0531(c) by removing out-of-date, pollutant-specific
nonattainment area references (for ozone and carbon monoxide) in the
State,\18\ and instead proposes to rely on the geographical
nonattainment descriptions codified at 40 CFR 81.334 to promptly and
accurately identify which areas in the State (for all NAAQS) are
designated nonattainment, and thus are subject to NNSR permitting
regulations. This change establishes these requirements for all future
designated nonattainment areas. By relying on the automatic updates
from changes to 40 CFR 81.334, this change would prevent any regulatory
confusion and potential SIP gaps for identifying current nonattainment
in the State subject to NNSR. EPA is proposing to approve this change
as it is consistent with the CAA and EPA's requirements for NNSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Currently, there are no nonattainment areas in the State,
and thus the list of nonattainment areas approved in the current SIP
is out of date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal requests
removal of language at 15A NCAC 02D .0531(n), which references text
being deleted from 15A NCAC 02D .0531(c), as discussed above, and
provides that certain permitting requirements for new major stationary
sources or modifications of VOC and NOX emissions do not
apply to sources that can demonstrate through urban airshed modeling
that they would not contribute to a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The
applicable time period for this provision is between the notification
in the North Carolina Register of an ozone NAAQS violation in certain
area(s) of the State and the designation of such area(s) as
nonattainment in 40 CFR 81.334. However, because 15A NCAC 02D .0531(c)
is being revised to rely solely on the nonattainment area designations
codified at 40 CFR 81.334 and not on the State's notification of ozone
NAAQS violations, the language at 15A NCAC 02D .0531(n) will be
obsolete. EPA is proposing to approve this change.
Fourth, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal revises
language at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531(m) regarding
notification and administrative requirements related to visibility
impacts to Class I Areas from proposed new modified sources.
Specifically, North Carolina's revised regulations generally require
that the state must notify the Federal Land Managers (FLM) no later
than 60 days after receipt of a permit application submitted pursuant
to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) or 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR). This 60-day
notice requirement is in addition to the pre-existing requirement in
North Carolina's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations that the state
notify the FLM of any proposed new source or modification that may
affect visibility in a Class I area and provide the FLM with ``a copy
of all information relevant to the permit application including an
analysis provided by the source of the potential impact of the proposed
source on visibility.'' See 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t)(2) (PSD); 15A NCAC
02D .0531(m)(3) (NNSR).
North Carolina's FLM notification provisions regarding proposed
sources and modifications that may affect visibility in a Federal Class
I area reflect federal regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 51.307(a)(1)
governing visibility protection in state NSR programs.\19\ EPA notes
that the proposed changes to North Carolina's FLM notification
provisions are consistent with a letter EPA sent to North Carolina
officials on April 16, 2013, which is included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking. In that letter, EPA generally concurred (with some
exceptions) with North Carolina's expressed understanding of EPA's
interpretation of the federal requirements governing the evaluation of
the visibility impacts of new and modified sources on Class I areas
under the PSD permitting program. Specifically, EPA affirmed that the
process for determining whether a proposed new source or modification
will cause an ``adverse impact on visibility'' in a Class I area is a
two-step process. The first step requires an assessment of visibility
impairment based on how visibility would change from what would have
existed in the absence of any human-caused pollution.
[[Page 28804]]
This analysis must be provided to the appropriate FLM(s) regardless of
whether the Class I increment is exceeded. The second step in the
analysis, the determination of whether the source will have an adverse
impact on visibility, requires a more holistic evaluation of the
various factors affecting visibility, potentially including current
visibility conditions and whether the State is on track toward
improving visibility. EPA concluded that because North Carolina's SIP-
approved regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(b) incorporate by reference
the key federal regulatory provisions,\20\ North Carolina's FLM
notification provisions are consistent with federal visibility
requirements. North Carolina's proposed SIP revision would incorporate
an additional FLM notification mechanism into North Carolina's NSR
procedures (generally requiring FLM notification of any PSD or NNSR
permit application regardless of whether the proposed source or
modification may affect visibility in a Class I area) and therefore
does not conflict with the federal FLM notification requirements
described above.\21\ Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531(m) provided in
North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ FLM notification is needed to enable the FLMs to fulfill
their obligation under 50 CFR 51.166(p)(2) ``to protect the air
quality related values (including visibility) of [Class I lands] and
to consider, in consultation with the Administrator, whether a
proposed source or modification would have an adverse impact on such
values.''
\20\ When approving these provisions into North Carolina's SIP,
EPA specifically noted that North Carolina's SIP incorporates the
federal definitions of ``adverse impact on visibility'' and
``visibility impairment.'' 51 FR 2695 (January 21, 1986). North
Carolina's NNSR regulations also incorporate by reference the
federal regulatory definitions pertaining to visibility impact
assessment. See 15A NCAC 02D .0531(a).
\21\ Under previously approved North Carolina SIP provisions,
North Carolina must notify the FLMs of any proposed new source or
modification that may affect visibility in a Class I area and
provide the FLMs with an analysis of the potential visibility
impact. General FLM notification of all permit applications pursuant
to the SIP revision proposed for approval in today's notice would
not replace North Carolina's more specific, existing SIP obligations
regarding FLM notification of proposed new or modified sources that
may affect visibility in a Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal includes
several administrative and typographical changes for the State's NSR
regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR).
EPA is proposing to approve these changes to the extent that they do
not relate to 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule.\22\ Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve all of the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR)
and all of the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) except the portions
of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to
PM2.5 increments. As explained above, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the portions of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and
(v) that pertain to PM2.5 increments because they are not
associated with the correct major source baseline date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ For example, aside from the PM2.5-related
changes, North Carolina also revised 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs
(e), (q), and (v), to directly incorporate the PM10
increments. Previously, North Carolina had incorporated the
PM10 increments into 15A NCAC 02D .0530 by reference to
the CFR. North Carolina's decision to instead incorporate the
PM10 increments directly into state regulations does not
change the PM10 increment requirements under North
Carolina's PSD program and does not impact EPA's prior determination
that North Carolina's SIP appropriately incorporates the federal
PM10 increments. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve North
Carolina's proposed PM10-related changes to paragraphs
(e), (q), and (v) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the versions of
15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR) that became
effective in the state on September 1, 2013, except the portions of
paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to
PM2.5 increments. EPA is proposing to disapprove North
Carolina's September 5, 2013, submittal with respect to the
PM2.5-increment-related portions of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D
.0530(e), (q), and (v).
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittals?
As mentioned above, as a result of this proposed rule to partially
disapprove the PSD increment portion of North Carolina's September 5,
2013, SIP submittal, EPA is proposing to partially approve and
partially disapprove the PSD elements of the North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS (received on July
20, 2012); the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (received on November 2, 2012);
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (received March 18, 2014); the 2010
NO2 NAAQS (received on August 23, 2013); and the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS (received on December 4, 2015). Further, EPA is
proposing to convert the conditional approval of the PSD elements for
North Carolina's 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal (dated
April 1, 2008), and North Carolina's 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure submittal (dated September 21, 2009) to partial
approvals and partial disapprovals. The background for infrastructure
submittal requirements related to PSD is provided below, followed by a
summary of EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone,
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals. In a technical support document
for this proposed rulemaking, EPA provides more information on
infrastructure requirements and how EPA reviews state submittals
related to these requirements.
By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or
revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submittal may vary
depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as
well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation
plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submittal
for a new or revised NAAQS.
A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 2008 Lead, 2008
8-Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS
The PSD elements for infrastructure requirements are contained in
section 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as prong 3), and
110(a)(2)(J). For the remainder of this proposed rulemaking, EPA's
intent in referring to ``PSD elements'' is to address the PSD
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known
as prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). More detail regarding the aforementioned
110(a)(2) requirements related to PSD is provided below.
Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submittals: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major
sources; and PSD permitting of new major sources and major
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable as
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD
[[Page 28805]]
program). With regard to section 110(a)(2)(C), this proposed action
only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals with
respect to the major source PSD program.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submittals.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility
in another state (``prong 4''). With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
this proposed action only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submittals for prong 3.
Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four components that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submittals: (1) consultation with government
officials, (2) public notification, (3) PSD, and (4) visibility
protection. With regard to section 110(a)(2)(J), today's proposed
action only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals
for PSD.
Regarding the PSD elements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA
interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or
revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submittal that demonstrates that
the state has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current
requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of the
PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as prong 3) may
also be satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete
PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR
pollutants.
As described in EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance,\23\ an
infrastructure SIP submittal should demonstrate that one or more air
agencies has the authority to implement a comprehensive PSD permit
program under CAA title I part C, for all PSD-subject sources located
in areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable for one or
more NAAQS. EPA interprets the PSD elements to require that a state's
infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that
the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the
structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's
PSD permitting program is complete for the PSD elements if EPA has
already approved or is simultaneously approving the state's SIP with
respect to all structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA
regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed
action on the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA is proposing to
partially approve the PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure
SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
and to disapprove these submittals with respect to the PM2.5
increment requirements of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance, titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a),'' provides advice on the
development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the
2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS, and the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new
or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2008 Lead NAAQS
On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS
for lead to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). States
were required to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 8-
hour lead NAAQS to EPA no later than October 15, 2011. For the 2008
lead NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the PSD elements of
North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals received on July 20,
2012. As explained above, EPA is proposing to disapprove North
Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP revision related to the
PM2.5 increment requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's
SIP does not contain a fully approvable PSD program covering the
structural PSD requirements for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to
approve in part the PSD elements for North Carolina's July 20, 2012,
infrastructure submittal for the 2008 lead NAAQS, and disapprove this
submittal with respect to the PM2.5 increment requirements
of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA took action on other portions of
North Carolina's July 20, 2012, SIP submittal in separate rulemakings.
See 80 FR 12343 (March 9, 2015); 80 FR 67645 (November 3, 2015).
2. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075
parts per million. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
this proposed action only addresses the PSD elements of North
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittal received on November 2, 2012.
As explained above, EPA is proposing to disapprove North Carolina's
September 5, 2013, SIP revision related to the PM2.5
increment requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's SIP does not
contain a fully approvable PSD program covering the structural PSD
requirements for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to approve in part
the PSD elements for North Carolina's November 2, 2012, infrastructure
submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and disapprove this
submittal with respect to the PM2.5 increment requirements
of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA took action on portions of North
Carolina's November 2, 2012, SIP submittal in separate rulemakings. See
80 FR 67645 (November 3, 2015); 80 FR 68453 (November 5, 2015).
3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013.
For the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, this proposed action only
addresses the PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submittal received on August 23, 2013. As explained above, EPA is
proposing to disapprove North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP
revision related to the PM2.5 increment requirements.
Consequently, North Carolina's SIP does not contain a fully approvable
PSD program covering the structural PSD requirements for all NAAQS. EPA
is thus proposing to approve in part the PSD elements for North
Carolina's August 23, 2013, infrastructure submittal for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS, and disapprove this submittal with respect
to the PM2.5 increment requirements of 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the remainder of North
Carolina's August 23, 2013 SIP submittal through a separate rulemaking.
[[Page 28806]]
4. 2010 SO2 NAAQS
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an
hourly standard of 75 ppb based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520
(June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submittals for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later
than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, this
proposed action only addresses the PSD elements of North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittal received on March 18, 2014. As explained
above, EPA is proposing to disapprove North Carolina's September 5,
2013, SIP revision related to the PM2.5 increment
requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's SIP does not contain a
fully approvable PSD program covering the structural PSD requirements
for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to approve in part the PSD
elements for North Carolina's March 18, 2014, infrastructure submittal
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and disapprove this submittal
with respect to the PM2.5 increment requirements of 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the remainder of North
Carolina's March 18, 2014, SIP submittal through a separate rulemaking.
5. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15,
2013). An area will meet the standard if the three-year average of its
annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site
in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. For the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the
PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittal received
on December 4, 2015. As explained above, EPA is proposing to disapprove
North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP revision related to the
PM2.5 increment requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's
SIP does not contain a fully approvable PSD program covering the
structural PSD requirements for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to
approve in part the PSD elements for North Carolina's December 4, 2015,
infrastructure submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and
disapprove this submittal with respect to the PM2.5
increment requirements of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take
action on the remainder of North Carolina's December 4, 2015, SIP
submittal through a separate rulemaking.
B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
On October 16, 2012, and March 26, 2013, EPA conditionally approved
the PSD elements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of North Carolina's
SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, dated April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, respectively. See
77 FR 63234 and 78 FR 18241. On April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009,
North Carolina submitted infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The
conditional approvals were granted on the condition that North Carolina
would submit complete SIP revisions to address deficiencies in relation
to the State's NSR regulations within one year of publication of the
final conditional approvals.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In North Carolina's July 10, 2012, request for conditional
approval of the State's infrastructure submittal for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State committed to revising its rules to
reflect the 40 tons per year significance level for NOX
as a PM2.5 precursor and to adopt the 2006
PM2.5 PSD increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA noted in the October 16, 2012, final rulemaking that ``[i]f
North Carolina fails to submit these revisions by October 16, 2013,
this conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval on
that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not
required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional
approval is converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval triggers
the Federal Implementation Plan requirement under section 110(c).
However, if the State meets its commitment within the applicable
timeframe, the conditionally approved submittal will remain a part of
the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new
submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally
approved submittal will also be disapproved at that time.'' EPA
reiterated this condition in the March 26, 2013, final rulemaking.
North Carolina provided its submittal purporting to correct the
deficiencies with the State's NSR program on September 5, 2013. As
mentioned in EPA's October 16, 2012, and March 26, 2013, final
rulemakings, since North Carolina met the deadline to provide the
corrective SIP revision, the conditional approval remains in effect
until EPA concludes its action on the corrective SIP revision. This
proposed action is to disapprove North Carolina's September 5, 2013,
SIP submittal (i.e., the corrective SIP) in relation to the baseline
for the PM2.5 PSD increment--a critical component for the
State's NSR program. Thus, EPA is proposing to convert EPA's previous
conditional approval of these PSD elements of North Carolina's 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submittals to a partial approval and a partial disapproval for the
PM2.5 increment component.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the portions of North Carolina's regulations 15A NCAC 02D
.0530 and 15A NCAC 02D .0531, entitled ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration'' and ``Sources in Nonattainment Areas,'' respectively,
that EPA is proposing to approve herein. EPA is not proposing to
incorporate provisions for which the Agency is proposing to disapprove.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
VI. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove, in part,
changes to the North Carolina SIP, provided by the NC DEQ, to EPA on
May 16, 2011, (two submittals) and September 5, 2013. These changes
modify North Carolina's NSR--PSD and NNSR--permitting regulations
codified at 15A 02D .0530--Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
15A NCAC 02D.0531--Sources in Nonattainment Areas, and include the
adoption of some federal requirements respecting implementation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS through the NSR permitting program.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the State's changes as they
relate to the requirements to comply with EPA's 2008 PM2.5
NSR Rule and the State's miscellaneous changes as described in Section
II.C of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is proposing to disapprove North
Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal as it relates to the
requirements to comply with EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. If
EPA finalizes all of the actions proposed in today's notice, the
versions of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR) that
became effective in the state on September 1, 2013, will be
incorporated into North Carolina's SIP, with the exception of the
portions
[[Page 28807]]
of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to
PM2.5 increments. EPA's proposed disapproval of North
Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal as it relates to the
requirements to comply with EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, if
finalized, will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) for EPA to
promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency through a SIP
revision and EPA approves the SIP revision before EPA promulgates such
a FIP.
As a result of the proposed disapproval of a portion of the State's
NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to disapprove the PSD elements of
the North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead,
2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and is proposing to convert the Agency's
previous conditional approvals of the PSD elements of North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to disapprovals. North Carolina did
not submit these infrastructure SIPs to meet requirements for Part D of
the CAA or a SIP call; therefore, if EPA takes final action to
disapprove the PSD portions of these submittals, no sanctions will be
triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this proposed disapproval action,
that final action will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) for
EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency through a SIP
revision and EPA approves the SIP revision before EPA promulgates such
a FIP.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action approves,
in part, and disapproves, in part, state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. EPA is proposing to determine that the PSD
portion of some of the aforementioned SIP submittals do not meet
federal requirements. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 29, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-10894 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P