Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19519 

period for the information collection 

requirements in the proposed rule 

ended on December 18, 2015, and that 

period is not being reopened. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

contains changes to update the 

regulations governing the 

administration of the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000, as amended 

(EEOICPA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7384 et 

seq., which was originally enacted on 

October 30, 2000. The initial version of 

EEOICPA established a compensation 

program (known as Part B of the Act) to 

provide a uniform lump-sum payment 

of $150,000 and medical benefits as 

compensation to covered employees 

who had sustained designated illnesses 

due to their exposure to radiation, 

beryllium or silica while in the 

performance of duty for DOE and 

certain of its vendors, contractors and 

subcontractors. Part B of the Act also 

provides for payment of compensation 

to certain survivors of these covered 

employees, and for payment of a smaller 

uniform lump-sum ($50,000) to 

individuals (who would also receive 

medical benefits), or their survivors, 

who were determined to be eligible for 

compensation under section 5 of the 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

(RECA), 42 U.S.C. 2210 note, by the 

Department of Justice. Primary 

responsibility for the administration of 

Part B of the Act was assigned to DOL 

by Executive Order 13179 (‘‘Providing 

Compensation to America’s Nuclear 

Weapons Workers’’) of December 7, 

2000 (65 FR 77487). 

The initial version of EEOICPA also 

created a second program (known as 

Part D of the Act) that required DOE to 

establish a system by which DOE 

contractor employees (and their eligible 

survivors) could seek assistance from 

DOE in obtaining state workers’ 

compensation benefits if a Physicians 

Panel determined that the employee in 

question had sustained a covered illness 

as a result of work-related exposure to 

a toxic substance at a DOE facility. A 

positive panel finding that was accepted 

by DOE required DOE, to the extent 

permitted by law, to order its contractor 

not to contest the claim for state 

workers’ compensation benefits. 

However, Congress amended EEOICPA 

in Subtitle E of Title XXXI of the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, 

Public Law 108–375, 118 Stat. 1811, 

2178 (October 28, 2004), by abolishing 

Part D of the Act and creating a new Part 

E (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7385s through 

7385s-15) that it assigned to DOL for 

administration. Part E established a new 

system of variable federal payments for 

DOE contractor employees, uranium 

workers covered by section 5 of RECA, 

and eligible survivors of such 

employees. 

The Department’s proposed rule 

would amend certain of the existing 

regulations governing its administration 

of Parts B and E of EEOICPA to conform 

them to current administrative practice, 

based on its experience administering 

the Act since 2001, to bring further 

clarity to the regulatory description of 

the claims adjudication process, and to 

improve the administration of the Act. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

March, 2016. 

Leonard J. Howie III, 

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07488 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–CR–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0518; FRL–9944–50- 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to North Carolina’s regional 

haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

submitted by the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR) on October 31, 

2014, that relies on an alternative to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) to satisfy BART requirements 

for electric generating units (EGUs) 

formerly subject to the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA also 

proposes to find that final approval of 

this SIP revision would correct the 

deficiencies that led to EPA’s limited 

disapproval of the State’s regional haze 

SIP on June 7, 2012, and proposes to 

convert EPA’s June 27, 2012, limited 

approval to a full approval. This 

submittal addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

EPA’s rules that require states to prevent 

any future, and remedy any existing, 

manmade impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

regional haze program). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0518 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached by telephone 

at (404) 562–9031 or via electronic mail 

at Notarianni.Michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

A. Overview of the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19520 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

2North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

3Although a number of parties challenged the 

legality of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially 

vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), the United States Supreme Court 

reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on April 29, 

2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to 

resolve remaining issues in accordance with the 

high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, 

the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects 

and CSAPR is now in effect. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 

2015). 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas (Class I areas) which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ It also directs states to 

evaluate the use of retrofit controls at 

certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 

stationary sources in order to address 

visibility impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of 

the CAA requires states to revise their 

SIPs to contain such measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

towards the national visibility goal, 

including a requirement that certain 

categories of existing major stationary 

sources built between 1962 and 1977 

(known as ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources) 

procure, install, and operate BART. In 

the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress 

amended the visibility provisions in the 

CAA to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. 

In 1999, EPA promulgated the 

Regional Haze Rule, which requires 

states to develop and implement SIPs to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility in Class I areas by 

reducing emissions that cause or 

contribute to regional haze. See 64 FR 

35713 (July 1, 1999). The Regional Haze 

Rule requires each state, the District of 

Columbia, and the Virgin Islands to 

each submit a regional haze SIP no later 

than December 17, 2007. Under 40 CFR 

51.308(e), the SIP must contain 

emission limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance with 

BART for each BART-eligible source, 

unless the SIP demonstrates that an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative (BART Alternative) will 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions than 

would have resulted from the 

installation and operation of BART at all 

sources subject to BART and covered by 

the BART Alternative. An approvable 

BART Alternative must meet the criteria 

in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) as described in 

section II.B, below. 

CAA Section 169A and the Regional 

Haze Rule require states to establish a 

long-term strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. The longterm strategy is the compilation of all 

enforceable emission limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary for a state to meet 

applicable reasonable progress goals 

during an implementation period. For 

the first implementation period, the 

long-term strategy includes BART as 

well as any other controls necessary to 

ensure reasonable progress. 

B. North Carolina’s Regional Haze SIP 

North Carolina submitted its regional 

haze SIP on December 17, 2007, the 

regional haze SIP submittal deadline. 

Fully consistent with EPA’s regulations 

at the time, the SIP relied on CAIR to 

satisfy NOX and SO2 BART 

requirements for CAIR-subject EGUs in 

the State and to partially satisfy the 

requirement for a long-term strategy 

sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals. 

CAIR, promulgated in 2005, required 

27 states and the District of Columbia to 

reduce emissions of NOX and SO2 that 

significantly contribute to, or interfere 

with maintenance of, the 1997 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

for fine particulates and for ozone in 

any downwind state. CAIR imposed 

specified emissions reduction 

requirements on each affected state and 

established an EPA-administered cap 

and trade program for EGUs that states 

could join as a means to meet these 

requirements. 

EPA demonstrated that CAIR 

achieved greater reasonable progress 

toward the national visibility goal than 

BART for NOX and SO2 at BART-eligible 

EGUs in CAIR affected states, and the 

Agency revised the Regional Haze Rule 

to provide that states participating in 

CAIR’s cap-and-trade program need not 

require affected BART-eligible EGUs to 

install, operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and NOx. See 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005). As a result, a 

number of states in the CAIR region 

designed their regional haze SIPs to rely 

on CAIR as an alternative to NOx and 

SO2 BART for CAIR-subject EGUs. 

These states also relied on CAIR as an 

element of a long-term strategy for 

achieving their reasonable progress 

goals. 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,1

but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

CAIR.2 On August 8, 2011, acting on the 

D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA promulgated 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) to replace CAIR and thus to 

address the interstate transport of 

emissions contributing to nonattainment 

and interfering with maintenance of the 

two air quality standards covered by 

CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS.3 See 76 FR 48208. 

Due to CAIR’s status as a temporary 

measure following the D.C. Circuit’s 

2008 ruling, EPA could not fully 

approve regional haze SIP revisions to 

the extent that they relied on CAIR to 

satisfy the BART requirement and the 

requirement for a long-term strategy 

sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals. On these 

grounds, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of North Carolina’s regional 

haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the 

requirement for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP unless North Carolina submitted 

and EPA approved a SIP revision that 

corrected the deficiency. See 77 FR 

33642. EPA finalized a limited approval 

of North Carolina’s regional haze SIP on 

June 27, 2012, as meeting the remaining 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in the CAA and the Regional 

Haze Rule. See 77 FR 38185. 

II. Analysis of North Carolina’s 

Regional Haze SIP Submittal 

On October 31, 2014, NC DENR 

submitted a revision to North Carolina’s 

regional haze SIP to correct the 

deficiencies identified in the June 7, 

2012, limited disapproval by replacing 

reliance on CAIR with reliance on a 

BART Alternative to satisfy NOx and 

SO2 BART requirements for EGUs 

formerly subject to CAIR. EPA is 

proposing to approve this SIP revision 

because EPA is proposing to determine 

that the BART Alternative contained 

therein meets the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2) and that final approval 

of this SIP revision would correct the 

deficiencies that led to EPA’s limited 

disapproval of the State’s regional haze 

SIP. 

A. North Carolina’s BART Alternative 

North Carolina’s October 31, 2014, 

SIP revision relies on the State’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act (CSA) as a BART 

Alternative for NOX and SO2 at the 

BART-eligible EGUs formerly covered 

by CAIR. North Carolina enacted the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19521 

4More information on the CSA regulation can be 

found at http://daq.state.nc.us/news/leg/

cleanstacks.shtml. At the time that the CSA was 

enacted, the Progress Energy units were owned by 

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. and the Duke Energy 

units were owned by Duke Power. 

5The CSA also prohibited the purchase and trade 

of CAIR credits to meet the CSA caps when CAIR 

was in effect. Allowances cannot be traded between 

the units owned by Progress Energy and those 

owned by Duke Energy. 

6 In 2013, Duke Energy reported an excess of 

58,961 CAIR SO2 allowances and 1,987 CAIR NOx 

allowances above CSA emissions limits and 

Progress Energy reported 78,050 excess CAIR SO2

allowances. All of these excess allowances have 

been verified and transferred to the State. 

7This category includes EGUs that were 

converted from coal to natural gas. 

CSA in 2002 to improve air quality by 

imposing firm caps on the total annual 

emissions of NOx and SO2 from 42 coalfired EGUs at the 14 power plants 

identified in Table 1, below, operated by 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Progress 

Energy) and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 

(Duke Energy).4 The CSA requires Duke 

Energy EGUs and Progress Energy EGUs 

to reduce SO2 emissions to 150,000 tons 

and 100,000 tons, respectively, by the 

end of 2009 and to further reduce SO2

emissions to 80,000 tons and 50,000 

tons, respectively, by the end of 2013. 

The CSA limits NOx emissions from 

Duke Energy EGUs and Progress Energy 

EGUs to 35,000 tons and 25,000 tons, 

respectively, beginning on January 1, 

2007, and tightens the emissions cap on 

Duke Energy EGUs to 31,000 tons as of 

January 1, 2009. Collectively, the caps 

require these utilities to: (1) Reduce 

actual emissions of NOX from 245,000 

tons in 1998 to 56,000 tons by 2009 (a 

77 percent reduction), and (2) reduce 

actual SO2 emissions from 489,000 tons 

in 1998 to 250,000 tons by 2009 (a 49 

percent reduction) and to 130,000 tons 

by 2013 (a 73 percent reduction). 

Duke Energy and Progress Energy 

must meet the CSA emission caps 

through actual reductions. The CSA 

does not allow these units to buy or 

trade emissions credits (also referred to 

as ‘‘allowances’’) under CSAPR to meet 

these caps even though each utility may 

decide how to allocate emission 

reductions across its affected units.5

Furthermore, any CSAPR allowances in 

excess of the CSA emissions caps must 

be surrendered to the North Carolina 

State Treasurer thereby preventing the 

transfer of these allowances to EGUs 

located in other states within the 

CSAPR trading program.6 EPA approved 

the CSA emissions caps into North 

Carolina’s SIP on September 26, 2011. 

See 76 FR 59250. 

Progress Energy and Duke Energy 

have shut down 22 of the coal-fired 

EGUs subject to the CSA and have 

installed scrubbers to control SO2

emissions and Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR) or Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) to control 

NOX emissions on all of the currently 

operating coal-fired EGUs subject to the 

CSA in order to meet the emissions 

caps. Table 1, below, identifies the 

retired units and the NOX and SO2

emissions controls on the operating 

units. 

TABLE 1—EGUS SUBJECT TO THE CSA 

Status Facility Parent company * Unit ID BART-eligible NOX Control SO2 Control 

Operating 7 ............ Allen ...................... Duke ..................... 1–5 ............................... SNCR ................... FGD 

Asheville ............... Progress ............... 1–2 Y ........................... SCR ...................... FGD 

Buck ...................... Duke ..................... 5–9 ............................... SNCR ................... ** 

Belews Creek ....... Duke ..................... 1–2 Y ........................... SCR ...................... FGD 

Cliffside ................. Duke ..................... 5 Y ........................... SCR ...................... FGD 

6 ............................... SCR ...................... FGD 

Marshall ................ Duke ..................... 1–2, 4 

3 

Y ........................... SNCR ...................

SCR ......................

FGD 

FGD 

Mayo ..................... Progress ............... 1 ............................... SCR ...................... FGD 

Roxboro ................ Progress ............... 1–3 

4 

Y ........................... SCR ......................

SCR ......................

FGD 

FGD 

Retired .................. Cape Fear ............ Progress ............... 5–6 

Cliffside ................. Duke ..................... 4 

Dan River ............. Duke ..................... 1–3 

Lee ........................ Progress ............... 1–3 

Riverbend ............. Duke ..................... 7–10 

Sutton ................... Progress ............... 3 Y.

Weatherspoon ...... Progress ............... 1–3 

* Duke Energy and Progress Energy merged on July 2, 2012. 

** Units converted from coal to natural gas. 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of North Carolina’s 

BART Alternative 

The Regional Haze Rule requires that 

a SIP revision establishing a BART 

Alternative include the three elements 

listed below, and EPA has evaluated 

North Carolina’s BART Alternative with 

respect to each of these elements. 

• A demonstration that the emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure will achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would have resulted from 

the installation and operation of BART 

at all sources subject to BART in the 

state and covered by the alternative 

program. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i). 

• A requirement that all necessary 

emissions reductions take place during 

the period of the first long-term strategy 

for regional haze. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

• A demonstration that the emissions 

reductions resulting from the alternative 

measure will be surplus to those 

reductions resulting from measures 

adopted to meet requirements of the 

CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). 

EPA seeks comments on its proposed 

findings under each of these elements, 

which are described in detail below. 

1. Demonstration That the BART 

Alternative Will Achieve Greater 

Reasonable Progress Than BART 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), the 

state must demonstrate that the BART 

Alternative will achieve greater 

reasonable progress than would have 

resulted from the installation and 

operation of BART at all sources subject 

to BART in the state and covered by the 

alternative program. This demonstration 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19522 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

8 VISTAS is a collaborative effort of state 

governments, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, and other 

air quality issues in the southeastern United States. 

Member state and tribal governments include: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. 

must be based on the five criteria 

addressed below. 

a. List of All BART-Eligible Sources 

Within the State 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), 

the SIP submission must include a list 

of all BART-eligible sources within the 

state. In its December 31, 2007, regional 

haze SIP submittal, North Carolina 

identified all 17 BART-eligible sources 

located in the State. See 77 FR 11858, 

11873–11874 (February 28, 2012). Of 

these 17 sources, six were subject to 

CAIR and 11 were non-EGUs. North 

Carolina determined that one non-EGU 

source was subject to BART, nine were 

exempt from BART, and one was shut 

down. See 77 FR 11873, 11874 

(February 28, 2012). The State relied on 

CAIR to satisfy the NOX and SO2 BART 

requirements for the 13 BART-eligible 

EGUs at the six CAIR-subject sources. 

EPA approved the State’s identification 

of BART-eligible and BART-subject 

sources and the BART determination for 

the one BART-subject source not subject 

to CAIR (Blue Ridge Paper). See 77 FR 

38185 (June 27, 2012). EPA issued a 

limited disapproval of the State’s SIP 

submittal based on its reliance on CAIR 

to satisfy NOX and SO2 BART 

requirements for certain sources and to 

satisfy the long-term strategy 

requirements of its EGUs. See 77 FR 

33642 (June 7, 2012). In its October 31, 

2014, SIP revision, the State lists the 13 

BART-eligible EGUs impacted by EPA’s 

limited disapproval. Because the State 

identified all BART-eligible units in its 

regional haze SIP and identified all 

outstanding BART-eligible units in its 

BART Alternative SIP revision, EPA 

proposes to find that the State has met 

the requirement of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(A). 

b. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and 

All Bart Source Categories Covered by 

the Alternative Program 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), 

the SIP submission must include a list 

of all BART-eligible sources and all 

BART source categories covered by the 

BART Alternative, and each BARTeligible source in the state must be 

subject to the requirements of the 

alternative program or have a federally 

enforceable emission limitation 

determined by the state and approved 

by EPA as meeting BART. As previously 

mentioned, EPA approved the BART 

determinations for all BART-eligible 

units in North Carolina with the 

exception of NOX and SO2 BART for the 

13 BART-eligible EGUs formerly 

covered by CAIR, and these 13 units are 

subject to the BART Alternative. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the 

SIP revision satisfies 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(B). 

c. Analysis of BART and Associated 

Emissions Reductions 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), 

the SIP submission must include an 

analysis of the best system of 

continuous emissions control 

technology available and associated 

emission reductions achievable for each 

source subject to BART and covered by 

the alternative program. This analysis 

must be conducted by making a BART 

determination for each source subject to 

BART and covered by the alternative 

program unless the alternative has been 

designed to meet a requirement other 

than BART. In this latter case, the State 

may determine the best system of 

continuous emissions control 

technology and associated emission 

reductions for similar types of sources 

within a source category based on both 

source-specific and category-wide 

information, as appropriate. North 

Carolina opted to use the simplified 

approach because North Carolina 

created the CSA to meet requirements 

other than BART. 

In using the simplified approach for 

EGUs, states may estimate the emissions 

reductions associated with BART based 

on an analysis of what BART is likely 

to be for similar types of sources within 

the source category using the 

presumptions for EGUs in the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

under the Regional Haze Rule located at 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y (BART 

Guidelines). The BART Guidelines 

contain presumptive NOX and SO2

emissions limits for EGUs greater than 

200 megawatt (MW) capacity at plants 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 MW. When a state is 

estimating the emissions reductions 

achievable through BART at the BARTeligible EGUs covered by the BART 

Alternative, it should assume that these 

EGUs would control at the presumptive 

level unless the state determines that 

such presumptions are not appropriate. 

i. SO2 Emissions Reductions 

The BART Guidelines specify the 

presumptive SO2 BART limit at 95 

percent control or 0.15 pounds per 

million British Thermal Units (lbs/

MMBtu) for uncontrolled EGUs greater 

than 200 MW at 750 MW power plants 

unless an alternative control level is 

justified. See 40 CFR part 51, App. Y, 

IV.E.4. North Carolina used this 

presumptive limit to calculate SO2

BART emissions by multiplying the 

limit by each BART-eligible EGU’s 2002 

heat input in MMBtu. When compared 

to actual 2002 SO2 emissions, the State 

calculated that BART would reduce SO2

emissions by 274,668 tons. See Table 3 

in North Carolina’s October 31, 2014, 

submittal. 

ii. NOX Emissions Reductions 

All of the BART-eligible EGUs subject 

to the CSA burn bituminous coal and 

have either wall-fired or tangential-fired 

boilers. See Table 1 of the State’s 

October 31, 2014, submittal. The 

presumptive NOX emission limits for 

these EGUs are 0.39 and 0.28 lb/MMbtu 

for wall-fired and tangential-fired 

boilers, respectively, unless an 

alternative control level is justified. See 

40 CFR part 51, App. Y, IV.E.5. North 

Carolina used these presumptive limits 

to calculate NOX BART emissions by 

multiplying the corresponding limits by 

each BART-eligible EGU’s 2002 heat 

input in MMBtu. When compared to 

actual 2002 NOX emissions, the State 

calculated that BART would reduce 

NOX emissions by 19,364 tons. See 

Table 8 in North Carolina’s October 31, 

2014, submittal. 

d. Analysis of Emissions Reductions 

Associated With the BART Alternative 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), 

the SIP submission must include an 

analysis of the projected emissions 

reductions achievable through the 

BART Alternative. North Carolina 

projected these reductions using four 

different methods: (1) CSA emissions 

caps; (2) 2018 emissions projected by 

the Visibility Improvement—State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) 8 and presented in North 

Carolina’s December 17, 2007, regional 

haze SIP submission; (3) 2018 emissions 

projected by EPA’s Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM); and (4) 2018 emissions 

projected by Duke Energy after the 

merger with Progress Energy. North 

Carolina also evaluated actual emissions 

reductions from the CSA units by 

comparing 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 

2013 emissions to 2002 levels. Table 2 

shows the emissions reductions 

associated with the BART Alternative 

using the CSA caps and 2018 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19523 

9 Duke Energy must retire Allen Units 1 and 2 by 

December 31, 2024, pursuant to a consent decree 

entered by the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of North Carolina on October 20, 

2015. Consent Decree, United States, et al. v. Duke 

Energy Corporation, Civil Case No. 1:00–cv–1262 

(M.D.N.C. October 20, 2015). 

projections identified above, and Tables 

3 and 4 show the reductions using 

actual emissions from 2009–2015. 

3 and 4 show the reductions using 

actual emissions from 2009–2015. 

TABLE 2—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (TONS) FROM 2002 BASELINE USING CSA CAPS AND 2018 

PROJECTIONS

Pollutant 2002 Baseline CSA Cap 2018 VISTAS 2018 IPM 2018 Duke 

Emissions ............................ SO2 ..................................... 467,321 130,000 89,343 24,732 23,901 

Reductions from Baseline ... ............................................. ........................ 337,321 377,978 442,589 443,420

Emissions ............................ NOX .................................... 142,879 56,000 42,133 22,792 22,414 

Reductions from Baseline ... ............................................. ........................ 86,879 100,746 120,087 120,465 

TABLE 3—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2002 BASELINE USING ACTUAL EMISSIONS (TONS)—SO2

2002 Baseline 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 

Emissions ............................ 467,321 .............................. 110,818 116,529 73,457 53,458 42,080 

Reductions from Baseline ... ............................................. 356,503 350,792 393,864 413,863 425,241 

TABLE 4—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM 2002 BASELINE USING ACTUAL EMISSIONS (TONS)—NOX

2002 Baseline 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 

Emissions ............................ 142,879 .............................. 37,829 47,373 39,361 42,147 40,410 

Reductions from Baseline ... ............................................. 105,050 95,506 103,518 100,732 102,469 

i. CSA Caps 

Under the CSA, Duke Energy EGUs 

and Progress Energy EGUs were 

required to reduce SO2 emissions to 

150,000 tons and 100,000 tons, 

respectively, by the end of 2009 and to 

further reduce SO2 emissions to 80,000 

tons and 50,000 tons, respectively, by 

the end of 2013. Using the 2013 

emissions caps, the BART Alternative 

would reduce SO2 emissions by 337,321 

tons from 2002 levels. 

The CSA limited NOX emissions from 

Duke Energy EGUs and Progress Energy 

EGUs to 35,000 tons and 25,000 tons, 

respectively, beginning on January 1, 

2007, and tightened the emissions cap 

on Duke Energy EGUs to 31,000 tons as 

of January 1, 2009. Using the 2009 

emissions caps, the BART Alternative 

would reduce NOX emissions by 86,879 

tons from 2002 levels. 

ii. 2018 Projections 

VISTAS developed 2018 emissions 

projections for the states in the VISTAS 

region to use when preparing the states’ 

regional haze SIP submissions. VISTAS 

accounted for the CSA emissions caps 

and other control programs, including 

CAIR, in its 2018 modeling and 

projected total NOX and SO2 emissions 

from North Carolina’s EGUs at 42,133 

tons and 89,343 tons, respectively. See 

77 FR 11866 (February 28, 2012). North 

Carolina compared these 2018 VISTAS 

emissions projections for the CSA units 

with 2002 actual emissions and 

estimated that NOX and SO2 emissions 

from these units would decrease by 

100,746 tons and 377,978 tons, 

respectively. The projected NOX and 

SO2 emissions reductions from only the 

BART-eligible sources in the CSA 

would be 69,485 tons and 276,998 tons, 

respectively. 

North Carolina also included EPA 

IPM modeling year 2018 NOX and SO2

emissions estimates for the CSA EGUs. 

The IPM predicted that these units 

would emit approximately 22,792 tons 

of NOXemissions in 2018, resulting in a 

projected reduction of 120,087 tons 

when compared with 2002 actual 

emissions. The IPM also predicted 

24,732 tons of SO2 emissions from these 

units in 2018, resulting in a projected 

reduction of 442,589 tons compared to 

2002 actual emissions. These 

predictions are well below VISTAS’ 

2018 projections and the CSA emissions 

caps. 

Following the merger with Progress 

Energy, Duke Energy projected 2018 

emissions for its EGUs in North Carolina 

due to the significant shift from coal to 

natural gas and the retirement of several 

EGUs in the State. These estimates were 

prepared by Duke Energy based on its 

economic modeling, and they differ 

only slightly from the IPM forecast. The 

primary difference between the Duke 

Energy and IPM estimates is that EPA 

assumed in the IPM that the Allen 

facility’s coal-fired EGUs would be shut 

down by 2018.9 Duke Energy projected 

that the CSA units would emit 

approximately 22,414 tons of NOX and 

23,901 tons of SO2 in 2018, a reduction 

of approximately 120,465 and 443,420 

tons of NOX and SO2, respectively, from 

2002 levels, respectively. 

iii. Actual Emissions Reductions 

North Carolina analyzed actual 

emissions reductions achieved with the 

CSA for each year from 2009 to 2013 

using emissions reported to EPA’s Clean 

Air Markets Division. North Carolina 

started with 2009 because this is the 

year when Duke Energy and Progress 

Energy were required to comply with 

the CSA’s first SO2 cap and the final 

NOX cap. Emissions of SO2 steadily 

decreased from 116,529 tons in 2010 to 

42,080 tons in 2013. Actual NOX

emissions ranged from 47,373 tons in 

2010 to 40,410 tons in 2013. See Tables 

6 and 11 in North Carolina’s October 31, 

2014, submittal for actual emissions by 

CSA facility. 

e. Determination That the BART 

Alternative Achieves Greater 

Reasonable Progress Than BART 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), 

the state must provide a determination 

that the alternative achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based 

on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19524 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

10The VISTAS region includes North Carolina 

and the two states, Virginia and Tennessee, that 

North Carolina identified as having a Class I area 

potentially impacted by its sources. 

11As discussed above, North Carolina used EPA’s 

presumptive limits for NOX and SO2 as the BART 

benchmark. 

51.308(e)(3) provides two different tests 

for determining whether the alternative 

achieves greater reasonable progress 

than BART. Under the first test, if the 

distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under 

BART, and the alternative measure 

results in greater emission reductions, 

then the alternative measure may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable 

progress. If the distribution of emissions 

is significantly different, however, then 

the state must use the second test and 

conduct dispersion modeling to 

determine differences in visibility 

between BART and the alternative 

program for each impacted Class I area, 

for the worst and best 20 percent of 

days. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). The 

modeling would demonstrate ‘‘greater 

reasonable progress’’ if: (1) Visibility 

does not decline in any Class I area, and 

(2) there is an overall improvement in 

visibility, determined by comparing the 

average differences between BART and 

the alternative over all affected Class I 

areas. North Carolina did not provide 

dispersion modeling because it believes 

that greater reasonable progress can be 

shown through an emissions reduction 

analysis under the first 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) test and/or through a 

weight-of-evidence analysis based on 

the types of controls installed on the 

BART-eligible CSA units, the reductions 

in visibility impairing pollutants 

associated with the CSA, and the 

uniform nature of these reductions 

across all EGUs subject to the CSA. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

CSA achieves greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART at the BART-eligible EGUs 

covered by the CSA based on the 

following weight of evidence. 

First, BART would result in controls 

for NOX and SO2 only at the 13 BARTeligible EGUs, whereas the BART 

Alternative applies to 42 EGUs. Of these 

42 EGUs, 17 have retired, five have 

converted from coal to natural gas, and 

the remaining 20 coal-fired EGUs in 

operation are controlled for NOX and 

SO2. 

Second, the 20 operating coal-fired 

EGUs in the BART Alternative have 

installed emissions controls to meet the 

CSA that are, with the exception of NOX

control at Allen Units 1–5 and Marshall 

Units 1, 2, and 4, the most stringent 

controls available for SO2 and NOX. All 

of the CSA EGUs use flue gas 

desulphurization (i.e., scrubbers) to 

remove SO2. SO2 controls are of 

particular importance because, as North 

Carolina demonstrated in its regional 

haze SIP, sulfates are the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region and in states 

neighboring this region.10 See 77 FR 

11867, 11877 (February 28, 2012). Thus, 

North Carolina concluded that reducing 

SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU 

point sources in the VISTAS states 

would have the greatest visibility 

benefits for the North Carolina Class I 

areas and the Class I areas that the 

State’s sources impact. See 77 FR 11868 

(February 28, 2012). 

Regarding NOX, all of the CSA-subject 

EGUs in operation are using SCR for 

post-combustion NOX control, with the 

exception of Allen Units 1–5 (not 

BART-eligible) and Marshall Units 1, 2, 

and 4 (BART-eligible) that use SNCR. 

Although SCR is the most stringent NOX

control technology available for EGU 

retrofits, it is unlikely that a BART 

determination would result in the 

installation of SCR at Marshall Units 1, 

2, and 4 given the EGUs’ NOX

emissions, the distance from Class I 

areas, the cost of replacing SNCR with 

SCR, and the incremental visibility 

improvement associated with the switch 

from SNCR to SCR. As discussed in 

North Carolina’s 2007 regional haze SIP 

submittal, nitrates are a relatively small 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment on the 20 percent worst 

days at the inland Class I areas in 

VISTAS, which include all of the North 

Carolina Class I areas except for the 

Swanquarter National Wilderness Area. 

Therefore, the visibility benefits of 

reducing NOX emissions at these Class 

I areas are small. See 77 FR 11868 

(February 28, 2012). 

Third, the emissions reductions under 

the BART Alternative are greater than 

those that would result from the 

installation and operation of BART at 

the BART-eligible EGUs covered by the 

CSA under a variety of scenarios.11 As 

discussed in section II.B.1.c, above, 

North Carolina compared CSA 

emissions to BART emissions using the 

CSA caps, 2018 emissions projections 

prepared by VISTAS, IPM, and Duke 

Energy, and actual NOX and SO2

emissions. Only the emission reductions 

required by the CSA cap are federally 

enforceable by virtue of being included 

in North Carolina’s SIP. North 

Carolina’s calculations of emission 

reductions relative to the various 

projections provide additional 

information and support for its assertion 

that the BART Alternative achieves 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

Tables 5 through 7, below, identify the 

additional emissions reductions 

achieved through the BART Alternative. 

TABLE 5—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BEYOND BART USING CSA CAPS AND 2018 PROJECTIONS

(TONS) 

Pollutant BART CSA cap 2018 VISTAS 2018 IPM 2018 Duke 

Reductions from 2002 

Baseline.

SO2 ..................................... 274,668 337,321 377,978 442,589 443,420 

Reductions beyond BART .. ............................................. ........................ 62,653 103,310 167,921 168,752 

Reductions from 2002 

Baseline.

NOX .................................... 19,364 86,879 100,746 120,087 120,465 

Reductions beyond BART .. ............................................. ........................ 67,515 81,382 100,723 101,101 

TABLE 6—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BEYOND BART USING ACTUAL EMISSIONS (TONS)—SO2

BART 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 

Reductions from 2002 Baseline ............... 274,668 356,503 350,791 393,864 413,862 425,241 

Reductions beyond BART ....................... ........................ 81,835 76,123 119,196 139,194 150,573 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 19525 

12See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

TABLE 7—BART ALTERNATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BEYOND BART USING ACTUAL EMISSIONS (TONS)— NOX

BART 2009 Actuals 2010 Actuals 2011 Actuals 2012 Actuals 2013 Actuals 

Reductions from 2002 Baseline ............... 19,364 105,049 95,506 103,518 100,732 102,468 

Reductions beyond BART ....................... ........................ 85,685 76,142 84,154 81,368 83,104 

Compared with BART, North 

Carolina’s current CSA caps achieve an 

additional SO2 reduction of 62,653 tons 

and an additional NOX reduction of 

67,515 tons relative to the 2002 

baseline. Table 5 also shows that, 

depending on the origin of the 2018 

projections, the BART Alternative 

results in an additional SO2 reduction of 

103,310 to 168,752 tons and an 

additional NOX reduction of 81,382 to 

101,101 tons beyond BART. The 

comparison of actual emissions under 

the BART Alternative to estimated 

BART emissions in Tables 6 and 7 

shows that, between 2009 and 2013, the 

CSA achieved 76,123 to 150,573 tons of 

additional SO2 reductions and 76,142 to 

84,154 tons of additional NOX

reductions beyond BART. Regardless of 

the reduction scenario, the BART 

Alternative results in significantly lower 

NOX and SO2 emissions when compared 

to BART. 

Fourth, the NOX and SO2 emissions 

controls needed to comply with CSA 

requirements began operating before any 

controls would begin operation under 

BART. BART must be installed and 

operated as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than five years after the date 

of EPA approval of the regional haze 

SIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). The CSA, enacted 

in 2002, required compliance with the 

initial emissions caps for SO2 in 2007 

and NOX in 2009, and therefore resulted 

in emissions reductions before EPA 

issued a limited approval of North 

Carolina’s regional haze SIP on June 27, 

2012. See 77 FR 38185. Even if EPA had 

approved source-specific BART 

determinations for the CAIR-subject 

units in North Carolina at that time, the 

BART installation and operation 

deadline would have been set after 

compliance with the CSA began. 

Lastly, although the CSA does allow 

for limited emissions shifting, there is 

no indication that implementation of 

the CSA would result in any ‘‘hot 

spots,’’ as compared to BART. The 

shifting of emissions under the CSA is 

limited by the prohibition on emissions 

credit trading between the EGUs owned 

by Progress Energy and those owned by 

Duke Energy before the 2012 merger, as 

mentioned above. Additionally, the 

2009–2013 SO2 and NOX emissions data 

summarized in Tables 6 and 11, 

respectively, of North Carolina’s 

submittal indicate that emissions have 

not shifted to any significant degree 

between the EGUs subject to the CSA 

during this time period. Emissions 

reductions were taking place at each 

EGU facility and not isolated to any one 

facility or group of facilities. To the 

extent that any shifting might occur in 

the future, all of the operating Progress 

Energy units subject to the CSA operate 

with the most stringent NOX and SO2

control equipment, and all of the Duke 

Energy units subject to the CSA operate 

with the most stringent NOX and SO2

controls with the exception of Allen, 

Marshall, and Buck which operate 

SNCR. Of the SNCR units, only Marshall 

is BART-eligible. Even assuming that a 

BART analysis would result in a 

requirement to install SCR at Marshall, 

any shifting of emissions to Marshall 

would be restricted by its available 

capacity. Furthermore, any incremental 

decrease in NOX emissions if the State 

were to require SCR at Marshall would 

not be expected to have a significant 

impact on visibility at Class I areas due, 

in part, to the fact that nitrates are a 

relatively small contributor to PM2.5

mass and visibility impairment on the 

20 percent worst days at the Class I 

areas in closest proximity to Marshall. 

Based on the evidence provided 

above, EPA proposes to find that the 

BART Alternative achieves greater 

reasonable progress than BART and thus 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). 

2. Requirement That Emissions 

Reductions Occur During the First 

Implementation Period 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), 

the state must ensure that all necessary 

emission reductions take place during 

the period of the first long-term strategy 

for regional haze (i.e., by December 31, 

2018). The Regional Haze Rule further 

provides that, to meet this requirement, 

the state must provide a detailed 

description of the alternative measure, 

including schedules for 

implementation, the emission 

reductions required by the program, all 

necessary administrative and technical 

procedures for implementing the 

program, rules for accounting and 

monitoring emissions, and procedures 

for enforcement. Id. EPA proposes to 

find that the BART Alternative meets 

this requirement because the State has 

fully described the CSA, the CSA 

prescribes emissions reductions through 

the use of emissions caps, the emissions 

caps are in effect and incorporated into 

North Carolina’s SIP, and all CSAsubject EGUs are required to meet the 

accounting and monitoring 

requirements of CSAPR.12 Furthermore, 

all CSA-related permitting and 

construction activities have been 

completed to meet the CSA emissions 

caps. EPA therefore proposes to find 

that North Carolina has satisfied the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). 

3. Demonstration That Emissions 

Reductions Are Surplus 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), 

the SIP must demonstrate that the 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

alternative measure will be surplus to 

those reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP. The baseline date for regional haze 

SIPs is 2002, and the first NOX and SO2

CSA emissions caps were not effective 

until 2007 and 2009, respectively. See 

64 FR 35742. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to find that the reductions associated 

with the CSA are surplus in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). 

B. Reasonable Progress Evaluation 

EPA finalized a limited disapproval of 

North Carolina’s regional haze SIP based 

on its reliance on CAIR to satisfy the 

BART requirement and the requirement 

for a long-term strategy sufficient to 

achieve the state-adopted reasonable 

progress goals. See 77 FR 33653. In that 

action, EPA also finalized limited 

disapprovals of a number of other states’ 

regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR 

to satisfy these requirements and 

finalized Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs) that substituted reliance on 

CSAPR for reliance on CAIR for several 

states. Id. However, North Carolina’s 

2014 regional haze SIP submission 

relies on the CSA, rather than CSAPR, 

to correct the deficiencies in its regional 

haze SIP. EPA therefore must evaluate 

whether inclusion of the CSA in lieu of 

CAIR in the state’s long-term strategy is 

sufficient to ensure reasonable progress. 

As discussed in section II.B.1.e, 

sulfates are the major contributor to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19526 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the VISTAS region. Based on its 

conclusion that SO2 reductions would 

result in the greatest visibility 

improvements, North Carolina’s 2007 

regional haze SIP submission focused its 

reasonable progress control analysis on 

emission units that fall within the SO2

area of influence of any Class I area, as 

modeled by VISTAS, and have a one 

percent or greater contribution to the 

sulfate visibility impairment in at least 

one Class I area. See 77 FR 11869. 

Sixteen EGUs subject to the CSA and 

formerly subject to CAIR met North 

Carolina’s reasonable process screening 

criteria. The State subsequently 

concluded in its regional haze SIP 

submission that no additional controls 

beyond CAIR and the CSA were 

reasonable for these units during the 

first implementation period. See 77 FR 

11870, 11872. North Carolina’s longterm strategy relied, in part, on this 

conclusion. 

Ten of the 16 aforementioned units 

have shut down or converted to natural 

gas. The remaining coal-fired units have 

each installed FGD to comply with the 

CSA. Given North Carolina’s focus on 

reducing SO2 emissions to achieve 

reasonable progress and the fact that 

coal-fired EGUs remaining in operation 

are already subject to the most stringent 

SO2 controls available, EPA proposes to 

find that no additional controls are 

necessary for these units to achieve 

reasonable progress during the first 

implementation period. This proposed 

finding and the proposed finding that 

North Carolina’s BART Alternative 

meets the requirements of the Regional 

Haze Rule form the basis for EPA’s 

proposal to convert EPA’s limited 

disapproval of the State’s regional haze 

SIP to a full approval. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to find that North 

Carolina’s regional haze SIP revision 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA and Regional Haze Rule, including 

the requirement that the BART 

Alternative achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART. EPA also proposes to find that 

final approval of this SIP revision would 

correct the deficiencies that led to EPA’s 

limited disapproval of the State’s 

regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, and 

proposes to convert the EPA’s June 27, 

2012, limited approval to a full 

approval. These proposed actions, if 

finalized, would eliminate the need for 

EPA to issue a FIP to remedy the 

deficiencies in North Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP submission. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that 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 an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon mo NOX ide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 25, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–07670 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0696; FRL–9944–54– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 

Transportation Conformity Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control, on October 13, 

2015. This revision consists of 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation and enforceability of 

certain transportation-related control 

measures and mitigation measures. The 

intended effect of this approval is to 

update the transportation conformity 

criteria and procedures in the South 

Carolina SIP to reorganize previous 

exhibits into a single Memorandum of 

Agreement document as well as to 

update signatories to add the newly 

established Lowcountry Area 

Transportation Study to the list of 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 

created to represent a new urbanized 

area designated as a result of the 2010 

Census. This proposed action is being 

taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0696 at http://


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS