29250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 13, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12347 Filed 5–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0275; FRL–9928–11– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas; North Carolina; 

Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock 

Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 16, 2015, 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 the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate 

the portion of North Carolina that is 

within the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, 

North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte 

Area,’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to attainment for the 

2008 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 

determine that the bi-State Charlotte 

Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; to approve the State’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard in the Area, 

including the sub-area motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) for the years 2014 

and 2026 for North Carolina portion of 

the Area, into the SIP; and to 

redesignate the North Carolina portion 

of the Area to attainment for the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

notifying the public of the status of 

EPA’s adequacy determination for the 

sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0275, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0275,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section (formerly the Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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–2015– 

0275. 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 Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29251 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 subarea 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 sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 

for the North Carolina portion of the 

area? 

VIII. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

IX. 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 

three separate but related actions, one of 

which involves multiple elements: (1) 

To determine that the bi-Charlotte Area 

is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; (2) to approve North Carolina’s 

plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (maintenance plan), 

including the associated sub-area 

MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area, into the SIP; 

and (3) to redesignate the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the 

public of the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the sub-area MVEBs 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. The bi-state 

Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg 

County in its entirety and portions of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 

Rowan and Union Counties, North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County, 

South Carolina. On April 17, 2015, the 

State of South Carolina, through the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Control (SC DHEC), provided a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for its portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. EPA will address South 

Carolina’s request and maintenance 

plan in a separate action. These 

proposed actions are summarized below 

and described in greater detail 

throughout this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

EPA is also making the preliminarily 

determination that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS based on recent air quality data 

and proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s maintenance plan for its 

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 keep the bi-state 

Charlotte Area in attainment of the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2026. 

The maintenance plan includes 2014 

and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for NOX and 

VOC for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA is proposing to approve these subarea MVEBs and incorporate them into 

the North Carolina SIP. 

EPA also proposes to determine that 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

Accordingly, in this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve a request to 

change the legal designation of 

Mecklenburg County in its entirety and 

the following portions of: 

• Cabarrus County (Central Cabarrus 

Township, Concord Township, 

Georgeville Township, Harrisburg 

Township, Kannapolis Township, 

Midland Township, Mount Pleasant 

Township, New Gilead Township, Odell 

Township, Poplar Tent Township, 

Rimertown Township), 

• Gaston County (Crowders Mountain 

Township, Dallas Township, Gastonia 

Township, Riverbend Township, South 

Point Township), 

• Iredell County (Davidson 

Township, Coddle Creek Township), 

• Lincoln County (Catawba Springs 

Township, Ironton Township, 

Lincolnton Township), 

• Rowan County (Atwell Township, 

China Grove Township, Franklin 

Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker 

Township, Locke Township, Providence 

Township, Salisbury Township, Steele 

Township, Unity Township), and 

• Union County (Goose Creek 

Township, Marshville Township, 

Monroe Township, Sandy Ridge 

Township, Vance Township), in North 

Carolina from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA is also notifying the public of the 

status of EPA’s adequacy process for the 

2014 and 2026 NOX and VOC sub-area 

MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area. The 

Adequacy comment period began on 

March 17, 2015, 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#north-carolina). The 

Adequacy comment period for these 

sub-area MVEBs closed on April 16, 

2015. No comments, adverse or 

otherwise, were received through the 

Adequacy process. Please see section 

VII of this proposed rulemaking for 

further explanation of this process and 

for more details on the sub-area MVEBs. 

In summary, this notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to North 

Carolina’s April 16, 2015, redesignation 

request and associated SIP submission 

that 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 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 

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 

0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. 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 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 

(effective July 20, 2012) using 2009– 

2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 

30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of 

designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area 

was classified as a marginal 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In the final 

implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (SIP Implementation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1This rule, entitled Implementation of the 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: 

State Implementation Plan Requirements and 

published at 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), 

addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including 

requirements pertaining to attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), 

reasonably available control technology (RACT), 

reasonably available control measures (RACM), 

major new source review (NSR), emission 

inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and 

of compliance with emission control measures in 

the SIP. This rule also addresses the revocation of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the anti-backsliding 

requirements that apply when the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS are revoked. 

Rule),1 EPA established ozone 

nonattainment area attainment dates 

based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the 

CAA. This established an attainment 

date three years after the July 20, 2012, 

effective date for areas classified as 

marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment designations. 

Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area’s 

attainment date is July 20, 2015. 

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; and 

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. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these 

actions? 

On April 16, 2015, the State of North 

Carolina, through NC DAQ, requested 

that EPA redesignate the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA’s evaluation indicates that 

the entire bi-state Charlotte Area has 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and that the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area meets the 

requirements for redesignation 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 

three related actions summarized in 

section I of this document. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

As stated above, in accordance with 

the CAA, EPA proposes in this action to: 

(1) Determine that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; (2) approve the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area’s 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

maintenance plan, including the 

associated sub-area MVEBs, into the 

North Carolina SIP; and (3) redesignate 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area to attainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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-State Charlotte Area 

Has Attained the 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For ozone, an 

area may be considered to be attaining 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it 

meets the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.15 and Appendix I of part 50, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain the 

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 0.075 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 0.075 

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). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

In this action, EPA is preliminarily 

determining that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA reviewed ozone 

monitoring data from monitoring 

stations in the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

2012–2014. These data have been 

quality-assured, are recorded in 

Aerometric Information Retrieval 

System (AIRS–AQS), and indicate that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29253 

2The monitor with the highest 3-year design 

value is considered the design value for the Area. 

the Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The fourth-highest 8- 

hour ozone values at each monitor for 

2012, 2013, 2014, and the 3-year 

averages of these values (i.e., design 

values), are summarized in Table 1, 

below. 

TABLE 1—2012–2014 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

[Parts per million] 

Location County Monitor ID 

4th Highest 

8-hour 

ozone value 

(ppm) 

3-Year 

design 

values 

(ppm) 

2012 2013 2014 2012–2014 

Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station Lincoln .............. 37–109–0004 0.076 0.064 0.064 0.068 

Garinger High School ........................... Mecklenburg ..... 37–119–0041 0.080 0.067 0.065 0.070 

Westinghouse Blvd ............................... Mecklenburg ..... 37–119–1005 0.073 0.062 0.063 0.066 

29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co ............... Mecklenburg ..... 37–119–1009 0.085 0.066 0.068 0.073 

Rockwell ................................................ Rowan .............. 37–159–0021 0.080 0.062 0.064 0.068 

Enochville School * ................................ Rowan .............. 37–159–0022 0.077 0.063 ........................ ........................

Monroe Middle School .......................... Union ................ 37–179–0003 0.075 0.062 0.067 0.068 

* Monitoring data for 2014 is not available because the monitor was shut down in 2014. 

The 3-year design value for 2012– 

2014 for the bi-state Charlotte Area is 

0.073 ppm,2 which meets the NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA will not take final action 

to approve the redesignation if the 3- 

year design value exceeds the NAAQS 

prior to EPA finalizing 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. 

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 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 BiState 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 

(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. 

The section 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. 

In addition, EPA believes other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

attainment status are 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 which 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, 

2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3This direct final rule is effective June 22, 2015, 

without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by May 21, 2015. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this rule will not take 

effect. The associated proposed rule will remain in 

effect. 

4This direct final rule is effective June 22, 2015, 

without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by May 21, 2015. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this rule will not take 

effect. The associated proposed rule will remain in 

effect. 

5CAA 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. 

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). 

Title I, Part D, applicable SIP 

requirements. Section 172(c) of the CAA 

sets forth the basic requirements of 

attainment plans for nonattainment 

areas that are required to submit them 

pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of 

part D, which includes section 182 of 

the CAA, establishes specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. As 

provided in Subpart 2, a marginal ozone 

nonattainment area, such as the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, must submit an 

emissions inventory that complies with 

section 172(c)(3), but the specific 

requirements of section 182(a) apply in 

lieu of the demonstration of attainment 

(and contingency measures) required by 

section 172(c). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

contained in sections 172(c) and 182 

can be found in the General Preamble 

for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 

13498). 

Section 182(a) Requirements. Section 

182(a)(1) requires states to submit a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from 

sources of VOC and NOX emitted within 

the boundaries of the ozone 

nonattainment area. North Carolina 

provided an emissions inventory for the 

bi-state Charlotte Area to EPA in a July 

7, 2014 SIP submission. On April 21, 

2015, EPA published a direct final rule 

to approve this emissions inventory into 

the SIP.3 See 80 FR 22107 (direct final 

rule) and 80 FR 22147 (associated 

proposed rule). North Carolina’s section 

182(a)(1) inventory must be 

incorporated into the SIP before EPA 

can take final action to approve the 

State’s redesignation request for the bistate Charlotte Area. 

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states 

with ozone nonattainment areas that 

were designated prior to the enactment 

of the 1990 CAA amendments were 

required to submit, within six months of 

classification, all rules and corrections 

to existing VOC RACT rules that were 

required under section 172(b)(3) of the 

CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 

1990 CAA amendments. On June 23, 

1994, EPA determined that North 

Carolina met the section 182(a)(2) RACT 

‘‘fix up’’ requirements. See, e.g., 59 FR 

32363. 

Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each 

state with a marginal ozone 

nonattainment area that implemented, 

or was required to implement, an 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program prior to the 1990 CAA 

amendments to submit a SIP revision 

providing for an I/M program no less 

stringent than that required prior to the 

1990 amendments or already in the SIP 

at the time of the amendments, 

whichever is more stringent. On June 2, 

1995, EPA determined that North 

Carolina met requirements of section 

182(a)(2)(B). See 60 FR 28720. 

Regarding the permitting and offset 

requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) and 

section 182(a)(4), North Carolina 

currently has a fully-approved part D 

NSR program in place. However, EPA 

has determined that 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, because PSD requirements 

will apply after redesignation. 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’s PSD program will become 

applicable in the bi-state Charlotte Area 

upon redesignation to attainment. 

Section 182(a)(3) requires states to 

submit periodic inventories and 

emissions statements. Section 

182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit a 

periodic inventory every three years. As 

discussed below in the section of this 

document titled Criteria (4)(e), 

Verification of Continued Attainment, 

the State will continue to update its 

emissions inventory at least once every 

three years. Under section 182(a)(3)(B), 

each state with an ozone nonattainment 

area must submit a SIP revision 

requiring emissions statements to be 

submitted to the state by sources within 

that nonattainment area. North Carolina 

provided a SIP revision to EPA on July 

7, 2014, addressing the section 

182(a)(3)(B) emissions statements 

requirement, and on April 21, 2015, 

EPA published a direct final rule to 

approve this SIP revision.4 See 80 FR 

22107 (direct final rule) and 80 FR 

22147 (associated proposed rule). North 

Carolina’s emissions statements must be 

incorporated into the SIP before EPA 

can take final action to approve the 

State’s redesignation request for the bistate Charlotte Area. 

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 

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 5 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). 

Nonetheless, North Carolina has an 

approved conformity SIP for the 

Charlotte Area. See 78 FR 73266 

(February 24, 2014). Thus, 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 BiState Charlotte Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

North Carolina SIP for the bi-state 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29255 

6North Carolina also identified Tier 3 Motor 

Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards as a federal 

measure. EPA issued this rule in April 28, 2014, 

which applies to light duty passenger cars and 

trucks. EPA promulgated this rule to reduce air 

pollution from new passenger cars and trucks 

beginning in 2017. Tier 3 emission standards will 

lower sulfur content of gasoline and lower the 

emissions standards. 

Charlotte Area under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals in approving 

a redesignation request (see Calcagni 

Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (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). North Carolina has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved at various times, 

provisions addressing the various SIP 

elements applicable for the ozone 

NAAQS. See 77 FR 5703 (February 6, 

2012). 

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. EPA has approved all 

part D requirements applicable for 

purposes of this redesignation. As noted 

above, this action to propose approval of 

North Carolina’s redesignation request 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area is contingent upon 

EPA taking final action to approve the 

July, 7, 2014, emissions inventory and 

emissions statements SIP revision, 

which was published as direct final and 

proposed rules on April 21, 2015. See 

80 FR 22107 and 80 FR 22147. 

Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte 

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, applicable 

Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily 

determined 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 Federal measures and 

from state measures adopted into the 

SIP. EPA does not have any information 

to suggest that the decrease in ozone 

concentrations in the bi-state Charlotte 

Area is due to unusually favorable 

meteorological conditions. 

State and Federal measures enacted in 

recent years have resulted in permanent 

emission reductions. Most of these 

emission reductions are enforceable 

through regulations. A few nonregulatory 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 and North 

Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act. 

These measures are approved in the 

federally-approved SIP and thus are 

permanent and enforceable. The Federal 

measures that have been implemented 

include the following: 

Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards. 

Implementation began in 2004 and 

requires 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.6

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. EPA issued this rule in 

June 2004, which applies to diesel 

engines used in industries, such as 

construction, agriculture, and mining. It 

is estimated that compliance with this 

rule will cut NOX emissions from nonroad diesel engines by up to 90 percent 

nationwide. The non-road diesel rule 

was fully implemented by 2010. 

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 

highway vehicle standards. EPA issued 

this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002). 

This rule includes standards limiting 

the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which 

went into effect in 2004. A second phase 

took effect in 2007, which further 

reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur 

content to 15 ppm, leading to additional 

reductions in combustion NOX and VOC 

emissions. This rule is expected to 

achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX

emissions from diesel trucks and buses. 

Medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel 

consumption and GHG standards. 

These standards require on-road 

vehicles to achieve a 7 percent to 20 

percent reduction in CO2 emissions and 

fuel consumption by 2018. The decrease 

in fuel consumption will result in a 7 

percent to 20 percent decrease in NOX

emissions. 

Nonroad spark-ignition engines and 

recreational engines standards. The 

nonroad spark-ignition and recreational 

engine standards, effective in July 2003, 

regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon 

monoxide from groups of previously 

unregulated nonroad engines. These 

engine standards apply to large sparkignition engines (e.g., forklifts and 

airport ground service equipment), 

recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway 

motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), 

and recreational marine diesel engines 

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 reduce 

ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon 

monoxide, and fine particulate matter. 

National Program for greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions and Fuel Economy 

Standards. The federal GHG and fuel 

economy standards apply to light-duty 

cars and trucks in model years 2012– 

2016 (phase 1) and 2017–2025 (phase 2). 

The final standards are projected to 

result in an average industry fleet-wide 

level of 163 grams/mile of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) which is equivalent to 

54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if achieved 

exclusively through fuel economy 

improvements. The fuel economy 

standards result in less fuel being 

consumed, and therefore less NOX

emissions released. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

Consent Decree/Federal Facilities 

Compliance Agreement. On April 14, 

2011, TVA entered into a consent decree 

with Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, 

and North Carolina to resolve 

allegations of CAA violations at TVA’s 

coal-fired power plants. The relief 

obtained in this consent decree was also 

secured in a Federal Facilities 

Compliance Agreement (FFCA) between 

EPA and TVA. The consent decree and 

FFCA establish system-wide caps on 

NOX and SO2 emissions at TVA’s coalfired facilities, declining to permanent 

levels of 52,000 tons of NOX in 2018 and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA notes that there are no sources covered by 

the consent decree/FFCA in North Carolina. 

Although the bi-state Charlotte Area may get 

residual benefits from the implementation of 

consent decree/FFCA, EPA does not believe these 

measures are needed for the bi-state Charlotte Area 

to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

8North Carolina also identified the NESHAP for 

industrial, commercial and institutional boilers as 

a federal measure. This NESHAP is also expected 

to result in a small decrease in VOC emissions. 

Boilers must comply with the NESHAP by January 

31, 2016, for all states except North Carolina which 

has a compliance date in May 2019. 

110,000 tons of SO2 in 2019, and require 

TVA to meet specific control 

requirements.7

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine (RICE) National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP).8 The RICE NESHAP is 

expected to result in a small decrease in 

VOC emissions. RICE owners and 

operators had to comply with the 

NESHAP by May 3, 2013. 

Utility Mercury Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) and New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS). On February 16, 

2012, EPA promulgated maximum 

achievable control technology 

regulations for coal- and oil-fired EGUs, 

intended to reduce hazardous air 

pollutants emissions from EGUs. 

Although the MATS rule is not targeted 

at NOX emissions, it is expected to 

result in additional NOX reductions due 

to the retirement of older coal-fired 

units. 

NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), EPA issued the NOX SIP 

Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of 

NOX, a precursor to ozone pollution, 

and providing a mechanism (the NOX

Budget Trading Program) that states 

could use to achieve those reductions. 

Affected states were required to comply 

with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning 

in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. 

By the end of 2008, ozone season 

emissions from sources subject to the 

NOX SIP Call dropped by 62 percent 

from 2000 emissions levels. 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. 

Emission reductions resulting from 

regulations developed in response to the 

NOX SIP Call are therefore permanent 

and enforceable for the purposes of this 

action. There are four facilities located 

within the North Carolina portion of the 

Area that are subject to the NOX SIP 

Call. These facilities are located in 

Gaston, Lincoln, and Rowan Counties. 

Two coal-fired power plants (Buck and 

Riverbend) were retired on April 1, 

2013, which resulted in additional 

emissions reductions. There is also a 

facility west of the Area, Cliffside, 

located in Cleveland County, and a 

facility north of the Area, Marshall, 

located in Catawba County which are 

also subject to the NOX SIP Call. 

CAIR/CSAPR. CAIR created regional 

cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, 

including North Carolina. See 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). EPA approved 

North Carolina’s CAIR regulations into 

the North Carolina SIP on October 5, 

2007. See 72 FR 56914. In 2009, the 

CAIR ozone season NOX trading 

program superseded the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, although the emission 

reduction obligations of the NOX SIP 

Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 

51.121(r) and 51.123(aa). In 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) initially vacated CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), but ultimately remanded the rule 

to EPA without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 

8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the 

D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA promulgated 

CSAPR to address interstate transport of 

emissions and resulting secondary air 

pollutants and to replace CAIR. CSAPR 

requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from electric 

generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in 

the Eastern United States. 

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs 

would have superseded the CAIR cap 

and trade programs. Numerous parties 

filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and 

on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

Court issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 

2011), Order at 2. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and once 

again ordering continued 

implementation of CAIR. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit 

subsequently denied EPA’s petition for 

rehearing en banc. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302, 

2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 

2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then 

petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ 

of certiorari, and the Supreme Court 

granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013). 

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision regarding CSAPR, and 

remanded that decision to the D.C. 

Circuit Court to resolve remaining 

issues in accordance with its ruling. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA moved 

to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 

Case No. 11–1302, Document No. 

1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). 

In its motion, EPA asked the D.C. 

Circuit to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines by three years so that the 

Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 

2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 

2013), and the Phase 2 emissions 

budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 

(instead of 2014 and beyond). On 

October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion and lifted the stay 

of CSAPR which was imposed on 

December 30, 2011. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

(D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. On 

December 3, 2014, EPA issued an 

interim final rule to clarify how EPA 

will implement CSAPR consistent with 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s order granting 

EPA’s motion requesting lifting the stay 

and tolling the rule’s deadlines. See 79 

FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim 

final rulemaking). Consistent with that 

rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR 

on January 1, 2015. EPA expects that the 

implementation of CSAPR will preserve 

the reductions achieved by CAIR and 

result in additional SO2 and NOX

emission reductions throughout the 

maintenance period. 

As mentioned above, the State 

measures that have been implemented 

include the following: 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program. In 1999, 

the North Carolina State Legislation 

passed the Clean Air Bill that expanded 

the on-road vehicle I/M program from 9 

to 48 counties. It was phased-in in the 

Charlotte nonattainment area from July 

1, 2002, through January 1, 2004. This 

program reduces NOX, VOC, and CO 

emissions. The I/M program was 

submitted to EPA for adoption into the 

SIP in August 2002 and was federally 

approved in October 2002. Therefore, 

these emission reductions are both state 

and federally enforceable. 

On February 5, 2015, EPA approved a 

change to North Carolina’s I/M rules 

triggered by a state law which exempted 

plug-in vehicles and the three newest 

model year vehicles with less than 

70,000 miles on their odometers from 

emission inspection in all areas in North 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29257 

Carolina where I/M is required. In North 

Carolina’s section 110(l) demonstration, 

the State showed that the change in the 

compliance rate from 95 percent to 96 

percent more than compensates for the 

NOX and VOC emissions increase. EPAapproved change to the I/M rules was 

effective March 9, 2015, and are state 

and federally enforceable. 

Clean Smokestacks Act. This state law 

requires coal-fired power plants to 

reduce annual NOX emissions by 77 

percent by 2009, and to reduce annual 

SO2 emissions by 49 percent by 2009 

and 73 percent by 2013. This law set a 

NOX emissions cap of 56,000 tons/year 

for 2009 and SO2 emissions caps of 

250,000 tons/year and 130,000 tons/year 

for 2009 and 2013, respectively. The 

public utilities cannot meet these 

emission caps by purchasing emission 

credits. EPA approved the statewide 

emissions caps as part of the North 

Carolina SIP on September 26, 2011. In 

2013, the power plants subject to this 

law had combined NOX emissions of 

38,857 tons per year, well below the 

56,000 tons per year cap. The emissions 

cap has been met in all subsequent years 

as well and is enforceable at both the 

federal and state level. 

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 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for the maintenance 

of the 2008 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 2008 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 has 

preliminarily determined 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 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

quality-assured monitoring data for the 

3-year period from 2012–2014. North 

Carolina selected 2014 as the base year 

(i.e., attainment emissions inventory 

year) for developing a comprehensive 

emissions inventory for NOX and VOC, 

for which projected emissions could be 

developed for 2015, 2018, 2022, and 

2026. The attainment inventory 

identifies a level of emissions in the 

Area that is sufficient to attain the 2008 

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. 

The projected summer day emission 

inventories have been estimated using 

projected rates of growth in population, 

traffic, economic activity, and other 

parameters. Naturally occurring 

emissions (i.e., biogenic emissions) are 

not included in the emissions inventory 

comparison, as these emissions are 

outside the State’s control. In addition 

to comparing the final year of the plan 

(2026) to the base year (2014), North 

Carolina compared interim years to the 

baseline to demonstrate that these years 

are also expected to show continued 

maintenance of the 2008 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 

April 16, 2015, 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 EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division, 

the actual 2014 average July day 

emissions were used. For the other Title 

V sources, the latest data available 

(2013) was used to represent 2014 base 

year emissions. For sources emitting 

less than 25 tons per year and subject to 

the emissions statement requirements, 

the most recently reported data (2013) 

was used to represent 2014 base year 

emissions. For the small sources that 

only report emissions every 5 years, the 

most recently reported data (2013) was 

used to represent 2014 base year 

emission, since emissions from these 

sources do not vary much from year to 

year. Rail yard and airport emissions 

reported were obtained from the EPA’s 

2011 National Emission Inventory. 

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 

which were estimated by taking activity 

and multiplying by an emission factor. 

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. 

For on-road mobile sources, EPA’s 

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES2014) mobile model is run to 

generate emissions. The MOVES2014 

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 on-road 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

The 2014 NOX and VOC emissions for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area, as well as the 

emissions for other years, were 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance and are summarized in Tables 

2 through 4 of the following subsection 

discussing the maintenance 

demonstration. See Appendix B of the 

April 16, 2015, submission for more 

detailed information on the emissions 

inventory. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The maintenance plan associated with 

the redesignation request includes a 

maintenance demonstration that: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of NOX and VOC 

remain at or below 2014 emissions 

levels. 

(ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year 

and includes future emissions inventory 

projections for 2015, 2018, 2022, and 

2026. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10 

years 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 (2026) of the maintenance plan (see 

section VII below). Additionally, NC 

DAQ opted to establish sub-area MVEBs 

for an interim year (2014). 

(iv) Provides actual (2014) 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 2014 2015 2018 2022 2026 

Point ..................................................................................... 32.38 34.47 29.28 36.33 26.75 

Area ...................................................................................... 11.40 11.28 11.28 11.31 11.28 

Non-road .............................................................................. 26.26 24.35 19.79 16.07 14.03 

On-road ................................................................................ 60.15 53.97 33.92 22.94 15.47 

Total .............................................................................. 130.18 124.07 94.27 86.65 67.53 

TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE BISTATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Sector 2014 2015 2018 2022 2026 

Point ..................................................................................... 12.03 12.42 13.62 14.36 15.33 

Area ...................................................................................... 47.88 48.26 49.39 50.87 52.28 

Non-road .............................................................................. 18.89 18.17 17.08 17.04 17.55 

On-road ................................................................................ 34.32 31.82 23.94 19.16 14.98 

Total .............................................................................. 113.12 110.67 104.03 101.43 100.14 

TABLE 4—EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR

THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF

THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Year VOC 

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

2014 .............................. 113.12 130.18 

2015 .............................. 110.67 124.07 

2018 .............................. 104.03 94.27 

2022 .............................. 101.43 86.65 

2026 .............................. 100.14 67.53 

Difference from 2014 

to 2026 .................. ¥12.98 ¥62.65 

In situations where local emissions 

are the primary contributor to 

nonattainment, such as the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, if the future projected 

emissions in the nonattainment area 

remain at or below the baseline 

emissions in the nonattainment area, 

then the ambient air quality standard 

should not be exceeded in the future. 

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 2014 as the 

attainment emissions inventory year for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. North Carolina 

calculated safety margins in its 

submittal for years 2015, 2018, 2022, 

and 2026. Because the initial sub-area 

MVEB year of 2014 is also the base year 

for the maintenance plan inventory, 

there is no safety margin, therefore, no 

adjustments were made to the sub-area 

MVEBs for 2014. The State has allocated 

a portion of the 2026 safety margin to 

the 2026 sub-area MVEBs for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. 

TABLE 5—SAFETY MARGINS FOR THE

NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE

BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Year VOC 

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

2015 .............................. ¥2.45 ¥6.11 

2018 .............................. ¥9.09 ¥35.91 

2022 .............................. ¥11.69 ¥43.53 

2026 .............................. ¥12.98 ¥62.65 

The State has decided to allocate a 

portion of the 2026 safety margin to the 

2026 sub-area 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 five-step 

approach for determining a factor to use 

to calculate the amount of safety margin 

to apply to the sub-area MVEBs. Based 

on this approach, NC DAQ has allocated 

2.93 tpd (2650 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX

MVEB and 2.83 tpd (2,569 kg/day) to 

the 2026 VOC MVEB. After allocation of 

the available safety margin, the 

remaining safety margin was calculated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29259 

9On May 4, 2015, Sheila Holman, Director of NC 

DENR’s Division of Air Quality sent an email to 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief of the Region 4 EPA’s Air 

Regulatory Management Section to confirm that the 

State will address and correct any violation of the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable and within 18–24 months from a trigger 

activation. A copy of this clarification email is in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

as 59.72 tpd for NOX and 10.15 tpd for 

VOC. 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 along with 

the sub-area MVEBs to be used for 

transportation conformity proposes. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There are currently seven monitors 

measuring ozone in the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

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 all 

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 monitoring plan on 

November 25, 2013. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The State of North Carolina, through 

NC DAQ, has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the maintenance 

plan for the North Carolina portion of 

the Area. 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. 

Large stationary sources are required 

to submit an emissions inventory 

annually to NC DAQ or MCAQ. NC 

DAQ commits to review these emissions 

inventories to determine if any 

unexpected growth in NOX emissions in 

the Area may endanger the maintenance 

of the 2008 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 2008 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 AERR inventory years match 

the base year and final year of the 

inventory for the maintenance plan, and 

are within one or two years of the 

interim inventory 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 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in this Area. 

f. Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan 

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 April 16, 2015, submittal, 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 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., 

when the three-year average of the 4th 

highest values is equal to or greater than 

0.076 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 0.076 

ppm. 

The secondary trigger will apply 

where no actual violation of the 2008 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 

0.076 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 0.076 

ppm or greater at a monitor for which 

the previous season had a 4th highest 

value of 0.076 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 2008 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 2008 

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 Reasonably Available Control 

Technology on stationary sources with a 

potential to emit less than 100 tons per 

year in the North Carolina portion of the 

Charlotte 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,9 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. 

North Carolina has also developed a 

tertiary trigger that will be a first alert 

as to a potential air quality problem on 

the horizon. This trigger will be 

activated when a monitor in the Area 

has a 4th highest value of 0.076 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 0.076 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29260 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10The conversion to kilograms used the actual 

emissions reported in the MOVES model. The 

conversion was done utilizing the ‘‘CONVERT’’ 

function in an EXCEL spreadsheet. The conversion 

factor is 907.1847. 

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 

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: The attainment 

emissions inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring, 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 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 requirements) 

and maintenance plans create MVEBs 

(or in this case sub-area 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 interagency 

consultation process on setting sub-area 

MVEBs, the DAQ held three conference 

calls with the Charlotte Regional 

Transportation Planning Organization 

(CRTPO)—Rocky River Rural Planning 

Organization (RRRPO), GastonCleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (GCLMPO), and 

Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (CRMPO) to determine 

what years to set sub-area MVEBs for 

the Charlotte maintenance plan. 

According to the transportation 

conformity rule, a maintenance plan 

must establish MVEBs for the last year 

of the maintenance plan (in this case, 

2026). See 40 CFR 93.118. The 

consensus formed during the 

interagency consultation process was 

that another MVEB should be set for the 

Charlotte maintenance plan base year of 

2014. 

Accordingly, NC DAQ established 

separate sub-area MVEBs based on the 

latest Metropolitan Planning 

Organization jurisdictional boundaries 

such that sub-area MVEBs are 

established for the CRMPO (Cabarrus 

and Rowan Counties), for the CRTPO– 

RRRPO (Iredell, Mecklenburg and 

Union Counties), and for the GCLMPO 

(Gaston and Lincoln Counties) subareas. 

Although Cleveland County is included 

in the GCLMPO, it is not included in the 

Charlotte ozone nonattainment area. 

Tables 6 through 8 below provide the 

NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs in 

kilograms per day (kg/day),10 for 2014 

and 2026. 

TABLE 6—CRMPO SUB-AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 11,814 7,173 3,124 3,135 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 625 627 

Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 11,814 7,173 3,749 3,762 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29261 

TABLE 7—GCLMPO SUB-AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 10,079 5,916 2,482 2,278 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 510 470 

Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 10,079 5,916 2,992 2,748 

TABLE 8—CRTPO–RRRPO SUB-AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 32,679 18,038 8,426 8,189 

Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,515 1,472 

Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 32,679 18,038 9,941 9,661 

As mentioned above, North Carolina 

has chosen to allocate a portion of the 

available 2026 safety margin to the NOX

and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2026. 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. 

As discussed above, North Carolina has 

selected 2014 as the base year. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the sub-area 

MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2014 and 

2026 for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA 

believes that the Area maintains the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the 

emissions at the levels of the budgets. 

Once the sub-area MVEBs for the North 

Carolina portion of 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 preliminary 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 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2026. 

VII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

Proposed NOX and VOC sub-area 

MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for the North 

Carolina portion of the 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 

maintenance plan includes NOX and 

VOC sub-arear MVEBs for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for 2014, an interim year of the 

maintenance plan, and 2026, the last 

year of the maintenance plan. EPA is 

reviewing the NOX and VOC sub-area 

MVEBs through the adequacy process. 

The North Carolina bi-state Charlotte 

Area NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs, 

opened for public comment on EPA’s 

adequacy Web site on March 17, 2015, 

found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy for the sub-area MVEBs for 

2014 and 2026 for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 

closed on April 16, 2015. No comments, 

adverse or otherwise, were received 

during EPA’s adequacy process for the 

sub-area MVEBs associated with North 

Carolina’s maintenance plan. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

2014 and 2026 sub-area 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 March 17, 2015. After 

EPA finds the 2014 and 2026 sub-area 

MVEBs adequate or approves them, the 

new sub-area MVEBs for NOX and VOC 

must be used for future transportation 

conformity determinations. For required 

regional emissions analysis years that 

involve 2014 through 2026, the 

applicable 2014 sub-area MVEBs will be 

used and for 2026 and beyond, the 

applicable budgets will be the new 2026 

sub-area MVEBs established in the 

maintenance plan, as defined in section 

VI of this proposed rulemaking. 

VIII. What is the effect of EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of North 

Carolina’s redesignation request would 

change the legal designation of 

Mecklenburg County in its entirety, and 

the portion of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, 

Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties 

within the North Carolina portion of the 

bi-state Charlotte Area, as found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina’s 

associated SIP revision would also 

incorporate a plan for maintaining the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bistate Charlotte Area through 2026 into 

the SIP. This maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and procedures for 

evaluation of potential violations. The 

maintenance plan also establishes NOX

and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 

2026 for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area. The sub-area 

MVEBs are listed in Tables 6 through 8 

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 2014 and 2026 for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. 

IX. Proposed Actions 

EPA is taking three separate but 

related actions regarding the 

redesignation and maintenance of the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard by the July 20, 

2015, required attainment date. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the entire 

bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 

complete, quality-assured, and certified 

monitoring data for the 2012–2014 

monitoring period. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan for the North Carolina portion of 

the Area, including the NOX and VOC 

sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026, into 

the North Carolina SIP (under CAA 

section 175A). The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 2008 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 this action, EPA 

is describing the status of its adequacy 

determination for the NOX and VOC 

sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 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 publication 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 

sub-area MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

Additionally, 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 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s redesignation request 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. If finalized, 

approval of the redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

Mecklenburg County in its entirety, and 

a portion of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, 

Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in 

North Carolina, as found at 40 CFR part 

81, from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

X. 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. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely propose to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For this reason, these 

proposed actions: 

• Are 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); 

• 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). 

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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 13, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12352 Filed 5–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS