```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28797-28807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10894]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0501; FRL-9946-14-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval and Disapproval; North Carolina: New Source 
Review for Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, changes to the North 
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), provided by the North 
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) through the 
Division of Air Quality, to EPA in submittals dated May 16, 2011 (two 
separate submittals), and September 5, 2013. These SIP submittals 
modify North Carolina's New Source Review (NSR)--Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review 
(NNSR)--permitting regulations and include the adoption of some federal 
requirements regarding implementation of the fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
through the NSR permitting program. As a result of the proposed 
disapproval of a portion of the State's NSR requirements, EPA is also 
proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, the PSD 
elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 
lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2010 
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and to convert the Agency's previous conditional approvals of the PSD 
elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 
Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 
partial approvals and partial disapprovals. This proposed partial 
disapproval, if finalized, will trigger the requirements for EPA to 
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years 
from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the 
deficiencies through a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP revision 
before EPA promulgates such a FIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0501 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey of the Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Huey can be reached by telephone at 
(404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?
II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS
III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's May 16, 2011, and 
September 5, 2013, SIP submittals addressing NSR requirements?
    A. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2008 NSR 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule
    B. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule
    C. North Carolina's Miscellaneous SIP Submittal Changes 
Regarding the NSR Program
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submittals?
    A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 2008 Lead, 
2008 8-Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing?

    EPA is proposing four actions, some with multiple parts, with 
regard to North Carolina's SIP submittals updating the State's PSD and 
NNSR regulations found at 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 
02D .0530 and 15A NCAC 02D .0531.\1\ First, EPA is proposing to approve 
a May 16, 2011, SIP submittal from North Carolina (as revised and 
updated by the State's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) as meeting the 
requirements of EPA's rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review 
(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers

[[Page 28798]]

(PM2.5);'' Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (hereafter 
referred to as the ``2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North Carolina's preconstruction permitting program for new 
and modified stationary sources is codified at 15A NCAC Subchapter 
02D. Specifically, North Carolina's PSD preconstruction regulations 
are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and apply to major stationary 
sources or modifications constructed in areas designated attainment 
or unclassifiable/attainment for the NAAQS, as required under part C 
of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). North Carolina's NNSR 
regulations are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0531 and apply to the 
construction and modification of any major stationary source of air 
pollution in or impacting upon a NAAQS nonattainment area, as 
required by Part D of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA is proposing to disapprove North Carolina's September 
5, 2013, SIP submittal with regard to changes to the State's regulation 
at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 because North Carolina's changes do not fully 
meet the requirements of EPA's rulemaking, ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),'' Final Rule, 75 FR 64864 
(October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to as the ``2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule'').
    Third, EPA is proposing to approve administrative changes to North 
Carolina's PSD and NNSR regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and 15A NCAC 
02D .0531 provided by the State in a SIP submittal also dated May 16, 
2011, including clarification of the applicability of best available 
control technology (BACT) and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) 
for electrical generating units (EGUs) in the State, and the inclusion 
of an additional Federal Land Manager (FLM) notification provision.
    Lastly, as a result of the proposed disapproval of a portion of the 
State's NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to approve, in part, and 
disapprove, in part, the PSD elements of the North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 
2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS and to convert the Agency's previous conditional approvals of the 
PSD elements of the North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for 
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS to partial approvals and partial disapprovals.

II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS

    ``Particulate matter,'' also known as particle pollution or PM, is 
a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. 
Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including 
acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and 
soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to 
their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about 
particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those 
are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and 
enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and 
lungs and cause serious health effects. EPA groups particle pollution 
into two categories:
     ``Inhalable coarse particles,'' or PM10, are 
particles larger than 2.5 micrometers but smaller than 10 micrometers 
in diameter. Inhalable coarse particles can be directly emitted from 
sources such as roadways and industries that create dusty emissions.
     ``Fine particles,'' or PM2.5, are solid or 
liquid particles that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. Fine 
particles can be directly emitted from sources such as industrial 
processes, diesel and gasoline engines, and wildfires, or they can be 
formed in the atmosphere secondarily as a result of chemical reactions 
between specific pollutants (known as PM2.5 precursors) that 
are emitted primarily from mobile and stationary combustion sources.
    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires EPA to set air quality 
standards to protect both public health and the public welfare (e.g., 
visibility, crops and vegetation). Particle pollution, especially fine 
particles, affects both. The human health effects associated with long- 
or short-term exposure to PM2.5 are significant and include 
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular 
disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency 
room visits) and development of chronic respiratory disease. In 
addition, welfare effects associated with elevated PM2.5 
levels include visibility impairment as well as effects on sensitive 
ecosystems, materials damage and soiling and climatic and radiative 
processes.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new standards 
for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator. See 62 FR 
38652. Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable particles 
smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator 
for the PM NAAQS. EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 24-
hour standards for PM2.5, setting an annual standard at a 
level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour 
standards at a level of 65 [micro]g/m\3\. Id. At the time EPA 
established the 1997 primary standards, EPA also established welfare-
based (secondary) standards identical to the primary standards. Id. The 
secondary standards are designed to protect against major environmental 
effects of PM2.5, such as visibility, impairment, soiling, 
and materials damage. Id. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary 
and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. See 71 FR 61236. In that 
rulemaking, EPA reduced the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 
[micro]g/m\3\ and retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
of 15 [micro]g/m\3\. Id. On December 14, 2012, the EPA Administrator 
signed a final rule revising the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 
[micro]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, section 110(a) of 
the CAA obligates states to submit SIP revisions that provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised 
NAAQS within three years following promulgation of such NAAQS--the so-
called infrastructure SIP revisions. Although states typically have met 
many of the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) 
through earlier SIP submittals in connection with previous PM 
standards, states were still required to submit SIP revisions that 
address section 110(a)(2) for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.

III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's May 16, 2011, and 
September 5, 2013, SIP submittals addressing NSR requirements?

    North Carolina provided its May 16, 2011, and September 5, 2013, 
SIP submittals to, among other things, comply with federal permitting 
requirements related to implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS 
through the NSR program. The relevant federal PM2.5 
permitting requirements for SIPs, set forth in 40 CFR 51.165 and 
51.166, were promulgated by EPA in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 
Implementation Rule and the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. States were 
required to make their SIP submittals to address the requirements of 
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule no later than May 16, 
2011, and to make their submittals to address the requirements of the 
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule no later than July 20, 2012.

A. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2008 NSR 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule

    North Carolina submitted its SIP to comply with the requirements of 
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule on May 16, 2011. 
Subsequently, on September 5, 2013, North Carolina submitted an update 
to its original submittal to correct a deficiency related to the 
significant emission rate for nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a 
precursor to PM2.5 formation. Background on the 2008 NSR 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and EPA's analysis of North 
Carolina's SIP submittals to comply with that rule is provided below.
1. Background on EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
    On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 
to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the NSR

[[Page 28799]]

permitting program. See 73 FR 28321. The 2008 NSR PM2.5 
Implementation Rule revised the federal NSR program requirements to 
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment 
areas. Among other things, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule required 
states to incorporate into their SIPs the following components of the 
NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) The requirement for NSR 
permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor 
pollutants that contribute to the secondary formation of 
PM2.5; (2) significant emission rates for direct 
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants that lead to the secondary 
formation of PM2.5 (including SO2, 
NOX, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) \2\); (3) NNSR 
PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) the requirement for 
applicability determinations and emission limits in PSD and NNSR 
permits to account for gases that condense to form particles 
(condensables) in PM2.5 and PM10.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, VOC is presumed 
not to be a precursor to PM2.5 unless the state 
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates 
that emissions of VOC from sources in a specific area are a 
significant contributor to that area's ambient PM2.5 
concentrations.
    \3\ Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule authorized states to adopt provisions in their nonattainment 
NSR rules that allowed for ``interpollutant trading'' for emission 
offsets. Specifically, the rule authorized states to allow new major 
stationary sources and major modifications in PM2.5 
nonattainment areas to offset increases of direct PM2.5 
emissions or PM2.5 precursors with reductions of either 
direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors in 
accordance with interpollutant offset ratios contained in the area's 
approved SIP. North Carolina elected not to include interpollutant 
trading ratios in its final SIP submittals and therefore will not be 
implementing interpollutant trading at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal (as revised by the 
State's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) addresses the PSD and NNSR 
provisions established in EPA's May 16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 
Implementation Rule. Two key issues, the NSR PM2.5 
litigation and condensable particulate matter emissions, are described 
in greater detail below.
a. NSR PM2.5 Litigation
    On January 4, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (hereafter referred to as the DC Circuit 
or Court) issued a judgment \4\ that remanded two of EPA's rules 
promulgated for implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 
including the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule. See 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 
2013). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 
PM2.5 NAAQS in these rules solely pursuant to the general 
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, 
rather than pursuant to the additional implementation provisions 
specific to particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. EPA 
had developed the NNSR requirements in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 
Implementation Rule pursuant to the general nonattainment requirements 
of subpart 1 of Part D, title I, of the CAA. Relative to subpart 1, 
subpart 4 of Part D, title I includes additional provisions that apply 
to PM10 nonattainment and is more specific about what states 
must do to bring areas into attainment. In particular, subpart 4 
includes section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the control of major 
stationary sources of PM10 precursors (and hence under the 
court decision, PM2.5 precursors) ``except where the 
Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in 
the area.'' The Court found that subpart 4 applies to PM2.5 
nonattainment and ordered EPA to repromulgate the 2008 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule pursuant to subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, American 
Lung Association, and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air challenged 
before the DC Circuit EPA's April 25, 2007, Rule entitled ``Clean 
Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,'' 72 FR 20586, which 
established detailed implementation regulations to assist states 
with the development of SIPs to demonstrate attainment for the 1997 
Annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the separate May 16, 
2008, NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule (which is considered 
in this proposed rulemaking). This proposed rulemaking only pertains 
to the impacts of the Court's decision on the May 16, 2008, NSR 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule promulgated new 
NSR requirements for implementation of PM2.5 in both 
nonattainment areas (NNSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). 
As Subpart 4 includes requirements only pertinent to nonattainment 
areas, EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address 
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas 
to be affected by the Court's opinion.
    On June 2, 2014, EPA published a final rule \5\ which, in part, set 
a December 31, 2014, deadline for states to make any remaining required 
SIP submittals needed for an attainment plan or the NNSR program, 
pursuant to and considering the application of subpart 4. See 79 FR 
31566. Requirements under subpart 4 for a moderate nonattainment area 
are generally comparable to subpart 1, including: (1) CAA section 
189(a)(1)(A) (NNSR permit program); (2) section 189(a)(1)(B) 
(attainment demonstration or demonstration that attainment by the 
applicable attainment date is impracticable); (3) section 189(a)(1)(C) 
(reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control 
technology; and (4) section 189(c) (reasonable further progress and 
quantitative milestones). The additional requirements pursuant to 
subpart 4 as opposed to subpart 1 correspond to section 189(e) 
(precursor requirements for major stationary sources). Further 
additional SIP planning requirements are introduced by subpart 4 in the 
event that a moderate nonattainment area is reclassified to a serious 
nonattainment area, or in the event that the moderate nonattainment 
area needs additional time to attain the NAAQS. The additional 
requirements under subpart 4 are not applicable for the purposes of CAA 
section 107(d)(3)(E) in any area that has submitted a complete 
redesignation request prior to the due date for those requirements; 
therefore, EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements for 
moderate nonattainment areas that have submitted a redesignation 
request prior to December 31, 2014, or for any area that has already 
been redesignated to attainment. See 79 FR at 31570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rule is titled ``Identification of Nonattainment 
Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS,'' Final Rule, 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014). 
This final rule also identifies the initial classification of 
current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as 
moderate and the EPA guidance and relevant rulemakings that are 
currently available regarding implementation of subpart 4 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two areas were initially designated nonattainment for the 1997 
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in North Carolina: The Greensboro-Winston 
Salem-High Point Area (hereafter referred to as the Greensboro Area) 
\6\ and the Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir Area (hereafter referred to as the 
Hickory Area).\7\ On December 18, 2009 (later supplemented on December 
22, 2010), NC DEQ \8\ submitted redesignation requests for the 
Greensboro Area and the Hickory Area. These requests were granted, and 
the Greensboro Area and the Hickory Area were both redesignated to 
attainment on November 18, 2011. See 76 FR 71455 and 76 FR 71452, 
respectively. Because the counties comprising these areas have been 
redesignated to attainment,

[[Page 28800]]

and no portions of North Carolina were designated nonattainment for 
either the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS, the State has no existing PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 
Therefore, the State is not currently required to regulate 
PM2.5 as part of its NNSR permitting program and, 
accordingly, the State did not need to submit additional SIP elements 
for PM2.5 to satisfy the Subpart 4 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The nonattainment area for the Greensboro Area for the 1997 
PM2.5 standard was comprised of Guilford and Davidson 
counties.
    \7\ The nonattainment area for the Hickory Area for the 1997 
PM2.5 standard was comprised of Catawba County only.
    \8\ Formerly the North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Condensables
    In the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA revised the definition 
of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' for PSD by adding paragraph 
51.166(b)(49)(vi), which provided that ``particulate matter (PM) 
emissions, PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions'' 
shall include gaseous emissions from a source or activity which 
condense to form PM at ambient temperatures and that on or after 
January 1, 2011, such condensable PM shall be accounted for in 
applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations 
for PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in permits. See 73 FR at 
28335. A similar paragraph revised the definition of ``regulated NSR 
pollutant'' in the NNSR rule but specified applicability to only 
``PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions'' and not to 
``particulate matter (PM) emissions.'' See 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D).
    Subsequently, EPA concluded that the 2008 NSR PM2.5 
Rule's requirement that the measurement of ``particulate matter 
emissions'' (as opposed to PM2.5 or PM10) must 
include the condensable fraction of primary PM was an inadvertent 
error. On October 25, 2012, EPA corrected this inadvertent error by 
revising the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' contained in the 
regulations for PSD at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21, and in EPA's Emission 
Offset Interpretative Ruling at 40 CFR part 51 Appendix S. See 77 FR 
65107. In taking that action, EPA explained that requiring inclusion of 
condensable PM in measurements of ``particulate matter emissions'' 
would have little if any effect on preventing significant air quality 
deterioration or on efforts to attain the primary and secondary PM 
NAAQS. See 77 FR at 65112. Thus, as revised, the federal PSD 
regulations do not require the inclusion of condensable PM in 
measurements of ``particulate matter emissions,'' except where either 
the applicable NSPS compliance test includes the condensable PM 
fraction or the applicable implementation plan requires the condensable 
PM fraction to be counted. Id.
    North Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal (as updated by the 
September 5, 2013, submittal) adopts EPA's definition for ``regulated 
NSR pollutant'' requiring states to consider condensables (at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(49)(vi)). However, because the State's submittal adopts the 
definitions in the CFR as of May 16, 2008 (prior to EPA's correction), 
the State's rule requires sources to account for the condensable 
fraction in the measurement and regulation of ``PM emissions'' as well 
as ``PM2.5 emissions'' and ``PM10 emissions.'' As 
explained above, this difference between North Carolina's regulations 
and the current federal PSD regulations does not impact North 
Carolina's efforts to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 
or to attain and maintain compliance with the PM NAAQS.
2. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding 
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
    In a May 16, 2011, SIP submittal intended to satisfy the State's 
obligations under the 2008 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, North 
Carolina proposed to incorporate by reference (IBR) into North 
Carolina's SIP, with one exception, the relevant portions of the 
federal PSD and NNSR permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165 
effective as of May 16, 2008.\9\ Specifically, North Carolina's May 16, 
2011, submittal incorporates by reference into North Carolina's PSD 
regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (state effective date January 2, 
2011) and into North Carolina's NNSR regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0531 
(state effective date January 2, 2011) the following PSD and NNSR 
provisions promulgated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule: (1) The requirement for PSD and NNSR permits to address directly 
emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (SO2 and 
NOX (as codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C) and 
51.166(b)(49)); (2) the significant emission rates for direct 
PM2.5 and precursor pollutant (SO2) (as codified 
at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i)); (3) the NNSR 
PM2.5 emission offsets (as codified at 51.165(9)(i)); and 
(4) the PSD and NNSR requirement that condensable PM, PM10 
and PM2.5 emissions be accounted in PSD applicability 
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for permitting 
(as codified at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D) and 51.166(b)(49)).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Paragraph (w) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (effective date January 
2, 2011) and Paragraph (o) of 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (effective date 
January 2, 2011) states: ``The reference to the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) in this Rule are incorporated by reference unless 
a specific reference states otherwise. Except for 40 CFR 81.334, the 
version of the CFR incorporated in this Rule is that as of May 16, 
2008, and does not include any subsequent amendments or editions to 
the referenced material.''
    \10\ As discussed above, on October 25, 2012, EPA removed the 
requirement that condensable PM be included in measurements of 
``particulate matter emissions.'' See 77 FR 65107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one exception to North Carolina's IBR of relevant requirements 
from the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule in the State's 
May 16, 2011, submittal is the significant emissions rate for 
NOX as a precursor to the secondary formation of 
PM2.5. Specifically, instead of incorporating the 40 tons 
per year (tpy) significant emission rate for NOX as a 
PM2.5 precursor (set forth at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 
40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i)), the state regulations included in North 
Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal set the rate at 140 tpy for both 
PSD and NNSR (at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(b)(4) and 15A NCAC 02D 
.0531(a)(3)).
    As mentioned above, in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA 
promulgated final rules governing the implementation of NSR program for 
PM2.5 including adding significant emission rates for direct 
PM2.5 and their precursors of SO2 and 
NOX. EPA's permitting program uses significant emission 
rates to determine the applicability of major NSR requirements to 
existing sources undergoing modifications. Specifically, EPA 
established the federal definition of ``significant'' for 
PM2.5 is 40 tpy for NOX unless it is demonstrated 
not to be a PM2.5 precursor as provided under the definition 
of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant.'' See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 
51.166(b)(23)(i). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166, a SIP can be more 
stringent than required by 40 CFR 51.166 but not less stringent. Under 
the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule, unless the state 
demonstrates that NOX is not a significant contributor to 
PM2.5 in a specific area, the significance threshold for 
NOX as a PM2.5 precursor can be no higher than 40 
tpy. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i). North Carolina did not submit a 
demonstration that NOX is not a significant contributor to 
PM2.5 formation in the State. Thus, North Carolina's 
adoption of a significant emission rate of 140 tpy for NOX 
as a precursor to PM2.5 in its May 16, 2011, SIP submittal 
is inconsistent with the federal requirements.
    In a subsequent SIP submittal, dated September 5, 2013, North 
Carolina revised the significant emission rate for NOX as a 
PM2.5 precursor. Specifically, North Carolina submitted 
updated versions of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (state effective date September 
1, 2013) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state effective date September 1, 
2013) that IBR the

[[Page 28801]]

federal rate of 40 tpy for NOX as a PM2.5 
precursor into the North Carolina. See 15A NCAC 02D .0530(b)(4) (PSD 
regulations) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531(a)(3) (NNSR regulations). 
Therefore, the 140 tpy significant emission rate for NOX as 
a PM2.5 precursor originally proposed in North Carolina's 
May 16, 2008, SIP submittal has been replaced and is no longer before 
the Agency for review and consideration.
    EPA notes that North Carolina's submittal contains provisions 
relevant to nonattainment NSR programs for PM2.5 
nonattainment areas. Specifically, in the definition of ``regulated NSR 
pollutant,'' the submittal provides that SO2 is a 
PM2.5 precursor, NOX is presumed to be a 
PM2.5 precursor, and VOCs and ammonia are presumed to not be 
PM2.5 precursors. This provision is consistent with the 
nonattainment NSR regulations promulgated in the 2008 PM2.5 
NSR Implementation Rule. However, as mentioned above, on January 4, 
2013, the DC Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 
F.3d at 428, issued a decision that remanded the 2008 PM2.5 
NSR Implementation Rule back to EPA. The Court held that the provisions 
of subpart 4 of the CAA apply in areas designated nonattainment for a 
PM2.5 NAAQS. These subpart 4 requirements, as applied to 
PM2.5, include section 189(e) of the CAA, which requires the 
control of major stationary sources of PM2.5 and all 
PM2.5 precursors, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC, 
and ammonia, in PM2.5 nonattainment areas unless the 
Administrator determines that such sources of a particular precursor do 
not contribute significantly to levels that exceed the standard in the 
nonattainment area.
    Although the State's submittal only requires regulation of 
SO2 and NOX as PM2.5 precursors in its 
NNSR permitting program, the State of North Carolina has no 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Accordingly, EPA finds it 
reasonable to conclude that major sources of VOCs and ammonia currently 
do not contribute significantly to PM2.5 nonattainment 
within the State. Thus, there is no need at this time for the State to 
regulate VOCs or ammonia as PM2.5 precursors in the State's 
nonattainment NSR permitting program, and this issue does not prevent 
EPA from approving the PM2.5 precursor provisions in North 
Carolina's May 16, 2011, SIP submittal (as revised by the State's 
September 5, 2013 submittal). Should EPA in the future designate an 
area in North Carolina as nonattainment for PM2.5, the State 
would have the obligation to submit a SIP revision demonstrating that 
the nonattainment NSR program meets all applicable requirements for 
PM2.5, including appropriate control of major sources of 
PM2.5 precursors under 189(e). See CAA sections 172(c)(5) 
and 189(a)(1)(A), (2)(B).
    EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's May 16, 
2011, SIP submittal, as updated by the September 5, 2013 SIP submittal, 
satisfies the requirements of the 2008 NSR PM2.5 
Implementation Rule. Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve North 
Carolina's submittal (as updated) and to incorporate 15A NCAC 02D .0530 
(state effective date September 1, 2013) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state 
effective date September 1, 2013) into North Carolina's SIP, with the 
exception of certain regulatory provisions identified and discussed 
below.

B. North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule

    North Carolina submitted its SIP to comply with the 2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule on September 5, 2013. Background on the 2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule and EPA's analysis of North Carolina's SIP 
submittal to comply with that rule is provided below.
1. Background on EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule
a. Requirements of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule for PSD SIP 
Programs
    EPA finalized the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule to provide 
additional regulatory requirements under the PSD SIP program regarding 
the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR at 64864. 
The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule required states to submit SIP 
revisions to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting provisions equivalent to or 
at least as stringent as the PSD increments and associated implementing 
regulations. Specifically, the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule requires 
states to adopt and submit for EPA approval into their SIP the 
numerical PM2.5 increments promulgated pursuant to section 
166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 
in areas meeting the NAAQS. States are also required to adopt and 
submit for EPA approval revisions to the definitions for ``major source 
baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area'' 
as part of the implementing regulations for the PM2.5 
increment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule also gave states 
discretion to adopt PM2.5 SILs and a SMC. See 75 FR at 
64900. On January 22, 2013, the DC Circuit vacated and remanded to 
EPA the portions of 50 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 addressing the 
PM2.5 SILs and also vacated the parts of the rule that 
established the PM2.5 SMC. North Carolina's September 5, 
2013, submittal does not include SILs or SMC so these regulatory 
provisions are not relevant to today's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Requirement for PM2.5 Increments
    As established in part C of title I of the CAA, EPA's PSD program 
protects public health from adverse effects of air pollution by 
ensuring that construction of new major sources or modifications in 
attainment or unclassifiable areas does not lead to significant 
deterioration of air quality while simultaneously ensuring that 
economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with preservation of 
clean air resources. Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a PSD permit 
applicant must demonstrate that emissions from the proposed 
construction and operation of a facility ``will not cause, or 
contribute to, air pollution in excess of any maximum allowable 
increase or allowable concentration for any pollutant.'' In other 
words, when a source applies for a permit to emit a regulated pollutant 
in an area that is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for a 
NAAQS, the state and EPA must determine if emissions of the regulated 
pollutant from the source will cause significant deterioration in air 
quality. Significant deterioration occurs when the amount of the new 
pollution exceeds the applicable PSD increment, which is the ``maximum 
allowable increase'' of an air pollutant allowed to occur above the 
applicable baseline concentration \12\ for that pollutant. Therefore, 
an increment is the mechanism used to estimate ``significant 
deterioration'' of air quality for a pollutant in an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the baseline 
concentration of a pollutant for a particular baseline area is 
generally the air quality at the time of the first application for a 
PSD permit in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of calculating increment consumption, a baseline area 
for a particular pollutant includes the attainment or unclassifiable 
area in which the source is located, as well as any other attainment or 
unclassifiable area in which the source's emissions of that pollutant 
are projected (by air quality modeling) to result in a significant 
ambient pollutant increase. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii). Once the 
baseline area is established, subsequent PSD sources locating in that 
area need to consider that a portion of the available increment may 
have already been consumed by previous emissions increases.
    In general, the submittal date of the first complete PSD permit 
application in a particular area is the operative ``baseline date'' 
after which new sources must evaluate increment

[[Page 28802]]

consumption.\13\ On or before the date of the first complete PSD 
application, emissions generally are considered to be part of the 
baseline concentration from which increment consumption is calculated, 
except for certain changes in emissions from major stationary sources. 
Emissions increases that occur after the baseline date will be counted 
toward the amount of increment consumed. Similarly, emissions decreases 
after the applicable baseline date restore or expand the amount of 
increment that is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Baseline dates are pollutant-specific. That is, a complete 
PSD application establishes the baseline date only for those 
regulated NSR pollutants that are projected to be emitted in 
significant amounts (as defined in the regulations) by the 
applicant's new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 
different baseline dates for different pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In practice, three dates related to the PSD baseline concept are 
important in understanding how to calculate the amount of increment 
consumed--(1) trigger date; (2) major source baseline date; and (3) 
minor source baseline date. The first relevant date is the trigger 
date. The trigger date, as the name implies, is a fixed date that 
triggers the overall increment consumption process nationwide. See 40 
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii). The two remaining dates--``major source baseline 
date'' and ``minor source baseline date''--are necessary to properly 
account for the emissions that are to be counted toward the amount of 
increment consumed following the national trigger date, in accordance 
with the statutory definition of ``baseline concentration'' in section 
169(4) of the Act. The ``major source baseline date,'' which precedes 
the trigger date, is the date after which actual changes in emissions 
associated with construction at any major stationary source affect the 
PSD increment. Such changes in emissions are not included in the 
baseline concentration, even if the changes in emissions occur before 
the minor source baseline date. In accordance with the statutory 
definition of ``baseline concentration'' at section 169(4), the PSD 
regulations define a fixed date to represent the major source baseline 
date for each pollutant for which an increment exists. The ``minor 
source baseline date'' is the earliest date after the trigger date on 
which a source or modification submits the first complete application 
for a PSD permit in a particular area. This is the date on which the 
baseline concentration is generally established. After the minor source 
baseline date, any change in actual emissions (from both major and 
minor sources) affects the PSD increment for that area.
    Once the minor source baseline date is established, the new 
emissions increase from the major source submitting the first PSD 
application consumes a portion of the increment in that area, as do any 
subsequent actual emissions increases that occur from any new or 
existing source in the area. When the maximum pollutant concentration 
increase defined by the increment has been reached, additional PSD 
permits cannot be issued until sufficient amounts of the increment are 
``freed up'' via emissions reductions that may occur voluntarily (e.g., 
via source shutdowns) or by mandatory control requirements imposed by 
the reviewing authority. Moreover, the air quality in a region cannot 
deteriorate to a level in excess of the applicable NAAQS, even if all 
the increment in the area has not been consumed. Therefore, new or 
modified sources located in areas where the air pollutant 
concentrations are near the level allowed by the NAAQS may not have 
full use of the amount of pollutant concentration increase allowed by 
the increment.
    In the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, pursuant to the authority 
under section 166(a) of the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical increments 
for PM2.5 as a new pollutant \14\ for which NAAQS were 
established after August 7, 1977,\15\ and derived 24-hour and annual 
PM2.5 increments for the three area classifications (Class 
I, II and III). See 75 FR at 64869 and the ambient air increment table 
at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). EPA also established the PM2.5 
``trigger date'' as October 20, 2011 (40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c)), and 
the PM2.5 ``major source baseline date'' as October 20, 2010 
(40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). See 75 FR at 64903. Finally, EPA amended the 
term ``baseline area'' at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) to include a level of 
significance of 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\, annual average, for establishing a new 
baseline area for purposes of PM2.5 increments. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS as a 
NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did not replace the 
PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for PM2.5 when the 
PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 1997. EPA rather retained 
the Annual and 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 (retaining 
PM10 as an indicator of coarse particulate matter) and 
treated PM2.5 as a new pollutant for purposes of 
developing increments. See 75 FR at 64864.
    \15\ EPA interprets section 166(a) to authorize EPA to 
promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations meeting the 
requirements of section 166(c) and 166(d) for any pollutant for 
which EPA promulgates a NAAQS after 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's SIP Submittal Changes Regarding 
the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule
    North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal adopts into the 
State's PSD permitting program at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 changes purporting 
to meet the requirements for PM2.5 increments in EPA's 2010 
PSD PM2.5 Rule. However, while North Carolina's revised PSD 
regulations incorporate the numerical PM2.5 increments at 
paragraphs (q) and (v) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530, the regulations do not 
include other key regulatory provisions needed to implement the 
PM2.5 increments in accordance with federal requirements. 
Specifically, North Carolina's changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 fail to 
incorporate the following federal requirements pertaining to 
implementation of PM2.5 increments: (1) the definition of 
``[m]ajor source baseline date'' for PM2.5 codified at 40 
CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) (defined as October 20, 2010); (2) the 
definition of ``[m]inor source baseline date'' for PM2.5 
codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c) (which establishes the 
PM2.5 trigger date as October 20, 2011); and (3) the 
definition of ``[b]aseline area'' codified at 40 CFR 
51.166(b)(15)(i).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ North Carolina's draft revisions to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 
would have used incorporation by reference (IBR) to adopt the 
federal regulations in the CFR as of October 20, 2010. In the final 
regulations, however, North Carolina chose to retain the former IBR 
date of May 16, 2008. North Carolina also chose in the final 
regulations to incorporate the numerical PM2.5 increments 
directly into the text of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 rather than to 
incorporate the increments by reference. However, North Carolina's 
decision to IBR the provisions in the 2008 CFR rather than the 
provisions in the 2010 CFR meant that North Carolina did not adopt 
into its regulations the definitions of ``major source baseline,'' 
``minor source baseline,'' and ``baseline area'' that EPA 
promulgated in the 2010 PSD PM2.5 rule. Rather, North 
Carolina adopted the definition of these terms as they appeared in 
the version of the CFR in effect as of May 16, 2008. Thus, the 
definition of ``major source baseline date'' incorporated into 15A 
NCAC 02D .0530 does not include the federally required 
PM2.5 major source baseline date of October 20, 
2010, but instead states: ``In the case of particulate 
matter and sulfur dioxide, January 6, 1975.'' Likewise, the 
definition of ``minor source baseline date'' incorporated into 15A 
NCAC 02D .0530 does not include the federally required 
PM2.5 trigger date of October 20, 2011, but instead 
states: ``In the case of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, 
August 7, 1977.'' It is EPA's understanding that North Carolina 
interprets the term ``particulate matter'' in these definitions to 
encompass PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without the federally required definitions of ``major source 
baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline date,'' and ``baseline area'' 
set forth in the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, North Carolina's PSD 
regulations do not require PSD sources to conduct the appropriate 
analyses demonstrating that emissions from proposed construction of 
major sources

[[Page 28803]]

or modifications will not cause or contribute to air pollution beyond 
the PM2.5 increment. While a State has the option of 
demonstrating that it has alternative measures in its plan other than 
the PM2.5 increment requirements that satisfy the prevention 
of significant deterioration requirements under sections 166(c) and 
166(d) of the CAA (see 40 CFR 51.166(c)(2)), North Carolina did not 
offer any such demonstration in connection with its September 5, 2013, 
SIP submittal. Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of 
North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal pertaining to 
adoption and implementation of the PM2.5 PSD increments on 
the basis that, taken as a whole, they are insufficient to satisfy the 
federal PM2.5 PSD increment requirements set forth in the 
2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. Specifically, EPA proposes to 
disapprove the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), and 
(v) that pertain to the PM2.5 increments.\17\ EPA notes that 
while the numerical PM2.5 increments at paragraphs (q) and 
(v) correctly reflect the numerical PM2.5 increments 
required by EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, EPA proposes to 
disapprove these provisions because North Carolina cannot properly 
apply the PM2.5 increments without adopting the associated 
definitions of ``major source baseline date,'' ``minor source baseline 
date,'' and ``baseline area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Paragraph (v) establishes the numerical PM2.5 
increments. Paragraph (q) addresses the Class I PM2.5 
variances. Paragraph (e) incorporates paragraph (v) by reference. 
EPA is proposing to disapprove 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), 
(q), and (v) in part, rather than in their entirety, because the 
paragraphs also include previously approved PM10 
increment requirements. Specifically, in addition to making the 
PM2.5-related changes to these paragraphs, North Carolina 
also revised 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), and (v), to 
directly incorporate the PM10 increments. Previously, 
North Carolina had incorporated the PM10 increments into 
15A NCAC 02D .0530 by reference to the CFR. EPA is proposing to 
approve the PM10-related changes to paragraphs (e), (q), 
and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. North Carolina's Miscellaneous SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 
NSR Program

    In addition to providing SIP submittals to comply with the 2008 NSR 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 2010 PSD PM2.5 
Rule, North Carolina provided administrative changes in the second of 
two May 16, 2011, SIP submittals (henceforth, the second May 16, 2011, 
SIP submittal) and in the September 5, 2013, SIP submittal, for the 
State's NSR regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D 
.0531 (NNSR). First, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP 
submittal makes changes to clarify that BACT for PSD and LAER for NSR 
applies to all new natural gas-fired EGUs for which cost recovery is 
sought under the State's Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA). North Carolina's 
intended purpose for the rule clarification is to ensure that new-
natural gas-fired EGUs that claim cost recovery pursuant to the CSA 
will not utilize the emission reductions to avoid BACT or LAER under 
the PSD or NNSR programs, respectively. EPA is proposing to approve 
this change to North Carolina's SIP for both rules 15A NCAC 02D .0530 
and 15A NCAC 02D .0531.
    Second, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal revises 
15A NCAC 02D .0531(c) by removing out-of-date, pollutant-specific 
nonattainment area references (for ozone and carbon monoxide) in the 
State,\18\ and instead proposes to rely on the geographical 
nonattainment descriptions codified at 40 CFR 81.334 to promptly and 
accurately identify which areas in the State (for all NAAQS) are 
designated nonattainment, and thus are subject to NNSR permitting 
regulations. This change establishes these requirements for all future 
designated nonattainment areas. By relying on the automatic updates 
from changes to 40 CFR 81.334, this change would prevent any regulatory 
confusion and potential SIP gaps for identifying current nonattainment 
in the State subject to NNSR. EPA is proposing to approve this change 
as it is consistent with the CAA and EPA's requirements for NNSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Currently, there are no nonattainment areas in the State, 
and thus the list of nonattainment areas approved in the current SIP 
is out of date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal requests 
removal of language at 15A NCAC 02D .0531(n), which references text 
being deleted from 15A NCAC 02D .0531(c), as discussed above, and 
provides that certain permitting requirements for new major stationary 
sources or modifications of VOC and NOX emissions do not 
apply to sources that can demonstrate through urban airshed modeling 
that they would not contribute to a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The 
applicable time period for this provision is between the notification 
in the North Carolina Register of an ozone NAAQS violation in certain 
area(s) of the State and the designation of such area(s) as 
nonattainment in 40 CFR 81.334. However, because 15A NCAC 02D .0531(c) 
is being revised to rely solely on the nonattainment area designations 
codified at 40 CFR 81.334 and not on the State's notification of ozone 
NAAQS violations, the language at 15A NCAC 02D .0531(n) will be 
obsolete. EPA is proposing to approve this change.
    Fourth, North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal revises 
language at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531(m) regarding 
notification and administrative requirements related to visibility 
impacts to Class I Areas from proposed new modified sources. 
Specifically, North Carolina's revised regulations generally require 
that the state must notify the Federal Land Managers (FLM) no later 
than 60 days after receipt of a permit application submitted pursuant 
to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) or 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR). This 60-day 
notice requirement is in addition to the pre-existing requirement in 
North Carolina's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations that the state 
notify the FLM of any proposed new source or modification that may 
affect visibility in a Class I area and provide the FLM with ``a copy 
of all information relevant to the permit application including an 
analysis provided by the source of the potential impact of the proposed 
source on visibility.'' See 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t)(2) (PSD); 15A NCAC 
02D .0531(m)(3) (NNSR).
    North Carolina's FLM notification provisions regarding proposed 
sources and modifications that may affect visibility in a Federal Class 
I area reflect federal regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 51.307(a)(1) 
governing visibility protection in state NSR programs.\19\ EPA notes 
that the proposed changes to North Carolina's FLM notification 
provisions are consistent with a letter EPA sent to North Carolina 
officials on April 16, 2013, which is included in the docket for this 
proposed rulemaking. In that letter, EPA generally concurred (with some 
exceptions) with North Carolina's expressed understanding of EPA's 
interpretation of the federal requirements governing the evaluation of 
the visibility impacts of new and modified sources on Class I areas 
under the PSD permitting program. Specifically, EPA affirmed that the 
process for determining whether a proposed new source or modification 
will cause an ``adverse impact on visibility'' in a Class I area is a 
two-step process. The first step requires an assessment of visibility 
impairment based on how visibility would change from what would have 
existed in the absence of any human-caused pollution.

[[Page 28804]]

This analysis must be provided to the appropriate FLM(s) regardless of 
whether the Class I increment is exceeded. The second step in the 
analysis, the determination of whether the source will have an adverse 
impact on visibility, requires a more holistic evaluation of the 
various factors affecting visibility, potentially including current 
visibility conditions and whether the State is on track toward 
improving visibility. EPA concluded that because North Carolina's SIP-
approved regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(b) incorporate by reference 
the key federal regulatory provisions,\20\ North Carolina's FLM 
notification provisions are consistent with federal visibility 
requirements. North Carolina's proposed SIP revision would incorporate 
an additional FLM notification mechanism into North Carolina's NSR 
procedures (generally requiring FLM notification of any PSD or NNSR 
permit application regardless of whether the proposed source or 
modification may affect visibility in a Class I area) and therefore 
does not conflict with the federal FLM notification requirements 
described above.\21\ Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the 
changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531(m) provided in 
North Carolina's second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FLM notification is needed to enable the FLMs to fulfill 
their obligation under 50 CFR 51.166(p)(2) ``to protect the air 
quality related values (including visibility) of [Class I lands] and 
to consider, in consultation with the Administrator, whether a 
proposed source or modification would have an adverse impact on such 
values.''
    \20\ When approving these provisions into North Carolina's SIP, 
EPA specifically noted that North Carolina's SIP incorporates the 
federal definitions of ``adverse impact on visibility'' and 
``visibility impairment.'' 51 FR 2695 (January 21, 1986). North 
Carolina's NNSR regulations also incorporate by reference the 
federal regulatory definitions pertaining to visibility impact 
assessment. See 15A NCAC 02D .0531(a).
    \21\ Under previously approved North Carolina SIP provisions, 
North Carolina must notify the FLMs of any proposed new source or 
modification that may affect visibility in a Class I area and 
provide the FLMs with an analysis of the potential visibility 
impact. General FLM notification of all permit applications pursuant 
to the SIP revision proposed for approval in today's notice would 
not replace North Carolina's more specific, existing SIP obligations 
regarding FLM notification of proposed new or modified sources that 
may affect visibility in a Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal includes 
several administrative and typographical changes for the State's NSR 
regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR). 
EPA is proposing to approve these changes to the extent that they do 
not relate to 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule.\22\ Specifically, EPA is 
proposing to approve all of the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR) 
and all of the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) except the portions 
of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to 
PM2.5 increments. As explained above, EPA is proposing to 
disapprove the portions of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and 
(v) that pertain to PM2.5 increments because they are not 
associated with the correct major source baseline date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, aside from the PM2.5-related 
changes, North Carolina also revised 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs 
(e), (q), and (v), to directly incorporate the PM10 
increments. Previously, North Carolina had incorporated the 
PM10 increments into 15A NCAC 02D .0530 by reference to 
the CFR. North Carolina's decision to instead incorporate the 
PM10 increments directly into state regulations does not 
change the PM10 increment requirements under North 
Carolina's PSD program and does not impact EPA's prior determination 
that North Carolina's SIP appropriately incorporates the federal 
PM10 increments. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve North 
Carolina's proposed PM10-related changes to paragraphs 
(e), (q), and (v) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the versions of 
15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR) that became 
effective in the state on September 1, 2013, except the portions of 
paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to 
PM2.5 increments. EPA is proposing to disapprove North 
Carolina's September 5, 2013, submittal with respect to the 
PM2.5-increment-related portions of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D 
.0530(e), (q), and (v).

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submittals?

    As mentioned above, as a result of this proposed rule to partially 
disapprove the PSD increment portion of North Carolina's September 5, 
2013, SIP submittal, EPA is proposing to partially approve and 
partially disapprove the PSD elements of the North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS (received on July 
20, 2012); the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (received on November 2, 2012); 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (received March 18, 2014); the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS (received on August 23, 2013); and the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS (received on December 4, 2015). Further, EPA is 
proposing to convert the conditional approval of the PSD elements for 
North Carolina's 1997 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal (dated 
April 1, 2008), and North Carolina's 2006 PM2.5 
infrastructure submittal (dated September 21, 2009) to partial 
approvals and partial disapprovals. The background for infrastructure 
submittal requirements related to PSD is provided below, followed by a 
summary of EPA's analysis of the PSD elements for North Carolina's 1997 
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 
2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals. In a technical support document 
for this proposed rulemaking, EPA provides more information on 
infrastructure requirements and how EPA reviews state submittals 
related to these requirements.
    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for 
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for 
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are 
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established 
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the 
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the 
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or 
revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submittal may vary 
depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as 
well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation 
plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submittal 
for a new or revised NAAQS.

A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 2008 Lead, 2008 
8-Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS

    The PSD elements for infrastructure requirements are contained in 
section 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as prong 3), and 
110(a)(2)(J). For the remainder of this proposed rulemaking, EPA's 
intent in referring to ``PSD elements'' is to address the PSD 
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known 
as prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). More detail regarding the aforementioned 
110(a)(2) requirements related to PSD is provided below.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in 
infrastructure SIP submittals: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of 
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major 
sources; and PSD permitting of new major sources and major 
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable as 
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD

[[Page 28805]]

program). With regard to section 110(a)(2)(C), this proposed action 
only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals with 
respect to the major source PSD program.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts 
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as 
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submittals. 
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions 
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment 
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and 
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are 
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from 
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility 
in another state (``prong 4''). With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 
this proposed action only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP 
submittals for prong 3.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four components that must be addressed in 
infrastructure SIP submittals: (1) consultation with government 
officials, (2) public notification, (3) PSD, and (4) visibility 
protection. With regard to section 110(a)(2)(J), today's proposed 
action only addresses North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals 
for PSD.
    Regarding the PSD elements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA 
interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or 
revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submittal that demonstrates that 
the state has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current 
requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of the 
PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as prong 3) may 
also be satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete 
PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR 
pollutants.
    As described in EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance,\23\ an 
infrastructure SIP submittal should demonstrate that one or more air 
agencies has the authority to implement a comprehensive PSD permit 
program under CAA title I part C, for all PSD-subject sources located 
in areas that are designated attainment or unclassifiable for one or 
more NAAQS. EPA interprets the PSD elements to require that a state's 
infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that 
the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the 
structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's 
PSD permitting program is complete for the PSD elements if EPA has 
already approved or is simultaneously approving the state's SIP with 
respect to all structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA 
regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed 
action on the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA is proposing to 
partially approve the PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure 
SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 
and to disapprove these submittals with respect to the PM2.5 
increment requirements of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance, titled ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a),'' provides advice on the 
development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 
2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS, and the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new 
or revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2008 Lead NAAQS
    On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS 
for lead to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). States 
were required to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 8-
hour lead NAAQS to EPA no later than October 15, 2011. For the 2008 
lead NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the PSD elements of 
North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals received on July 20, 
2012. As explained above, EPA is proposing to disapprove North 
Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP revision related to the 
PM2.5 increment requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's 
SIP does not contain a fully approvable PSD program covering the 
structural PSD requirements for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 
approve in part the PSD elements for North Carolina's July 20, 2012, 
infrastructure submittal for the 2008 lead NAAQS, and disapprove this 
submittal with respect to the PM2.5 increment requirements 
of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA took action on other portions of 
North Carolina's July 20, 2012, SIP submittal in separate rulemakings. 
See 80 FR 12343 (March 9, 2015); 80 FR 67645 (November 3, 2015).
2. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 
parts per million. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
this proposed action only addresses the PSD elements of North 
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittal received on November 2, 2012. 
As explained above, EPA is proposing to disapprove North Carolina's 
September 5, 2013, SIP revision related to the PM2.5 
increment requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's SIP does not 
contain a fully approvable PSD program covering the structural PSD 
requirements for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to approve in part 
the PSD elements for North Carolina's November 2, 2012, infrastructure 
submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and disapprove this 
submittal with respect to the PM2.5 increment requirements 
of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA took action on portions of North 
Carolina's November 2, 2012, SIP submittal in separate rulemakings. See 
80 FR 67645 (November 3, 2015); 80 FR 68453 (November 5, 2015).
3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). 
States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. 
For the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, this proposed action only 
addresses the PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP 
submittal received on August 23, 2013. As explained above, EPA is 
proposing to disapprove North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP 
revision related to the PM2.5 increment requirements. 
Consequently, North Carolina's SIP does not contain a fully approvable 
PSD program covering the structural PSD requirements for all NAAQS. EPA 
is thus proposing to approve in part the PSD elements for North 
Carolina's August 23, 2013, infrastructure submittal for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS, and disapprove this submittal with respect 
to the PM2.5 increment requirements of 2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the remainder of North 
Carolina's August 23, 2013 SIP submittal through a separate rulemaking.

[[Page 28806]]

4. 2010 SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 
hourly standard of 75 ppb based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th 
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 
(June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP 
submittals for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later 
than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, this 
proposed action only addresses the PSD elements of North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submittal received on March 18, 2014. As explained 
above, EPA is proposing to disapprove North Carolina's September 5, 
2013, SIP revision related to the PM2.5 increment 
requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's SIP does not contain a 
fully approvable PSD program covering the structural PSD requirements 
for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to approve in part the PSD 
elements for North Carolina's March 18, 2014, infrastructure submittal 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and disapprove this submittal 
with respect to the PM2.5 increment requirements of 2010 PSD 
PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the remainder of North 
Carolina's March 18, 2014, SIP submittal through a separate rulemaking.
5. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 
2013). An area will meet the standard if the three-year average of its 
annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site 
in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. States were 
required to submit infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. For the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this proposed action only addresses the 
PSD elements of North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittal received 
on December 4, 2015. As explained above, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP revision related to the 
PM2.5 increment requirements. Consequently, North Carolina's 
SIP does not contain a fully approvable PSD program covering the 
structural PSD requirements for all NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 
approve in part the PSD elements for North Carolina's December 4, 2015, 
infrastructure submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 
disapprove this submittal with respect to the PM2.5 
increment requirements of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take 
action on the remainder of North Carolina's December 4, 2015, SIP 
submittal through a separate rulemaking.

B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS

    On October 16, 2012, and March 26, 2013, EPA conditionally approved 
the PSD elements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of North Carolina's 
SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS, dated April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, respectively. See 
77 FR 63234 and 78 FR 18241. On April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, 
North Carolina submitted infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The 
conditional approvals were granted on the condition that North Carolina 
would submit complete SIP revisions to address deficiencies in relation 
to the State's NSR regulations within one year of publication of the 
final conditional approvals.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In North Carolina's July 10, 2012, request for conditional 
approval of the State's infrastructure submittal for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the State committed to revising its rules to 
reflect the 40 tons per year significance level for NOX 
as a PM2.5 precursor and to adopt the 2006 
PM2.5 PSD increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA noted in the October 16, 2012, final rulemaking that ``[i]f 
North Carolina fails to submit these revisions by October 16, 2013, 
this conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval on 
that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not 
required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional 
approval is converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval triggers 
the Federal Implementation Plan requirement under section 110(c). 
However, if the State meets its commitment within the applicable 
timeframe, the conditionally approved submittal will remain a part of 
the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new 
submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally 
approved submittal will also be disapproved at that time.'' EPA 
reiterated this condition in the March 26, 2013, final rulemaking.
    North Carolina provided its submittal purporting to correct the 
deficiencies with the State's NSR program on September 5, 2013. As 
mentioned in EPA's October 16, 2012, and March 26, 2013, final 
rulemakings, since North Carolina met the deadline to provide the 
corrective SIP revision, the conditional approval remains in effect 
until EPA concludes its action on the corrective SIP revision. This 
proposed action is to disapprove North Carolina's September 5, 2013, 
SIP submittal (i.e., the corrective SIP) in relation to the baseline 
for the PM2.5 PSD increment--a critical component for the 
State's NSR program. Thus, EPA is proposing to convert EPA's previous 
conditional approval of these PSD elements of North Carolina's 1997 
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 
submittals to a partial approval and a partial disapproval for the 
PM2.5 increment component.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the portions of North Carolina's regulations 15A NCAC 02D 
.0530 and 15A NCAC 02D .0531, entitled ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration'' and ``Sources in Nonattainment Areas,'' respectively, 
that EPA is proposing to approve herein. EPA is not proposing to 
incorporate provisions for which the Agency is proposing to disapprove. 
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally 
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 
copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble for more information).

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, 
changes to the North Carolina SIP, provided by the NC DEQ, to EPA on 
May 16, 2011, (two submittals) and September 5, 2013. These changes 
modify North Carolina's NSR--PSD and NNSR--permitting regulations 
codified at 15A 02D .0530--Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 
15A NCAC 02D.0531--Sources in Nonattainment Areas, and include the 
adoption of some federal requirements respecting implementation of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS through the NSR permitting program. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the State's changes as they 
relate to the requirements to comply with EPA's 2008 PM2.5 
NSR Rule and the State's miscellaneous changes as described in Section 
II.C of this proposed rulemaking. EPA is proposing to disapprove North 
Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal as it relates to the 
requirements to comply with EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. If 
EPA finalizes all of the actions proposed in today's notice, the 
versions of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR) that 
became effective in the state on September 1, 2013, will be 
incorporated into North Carolina's SIP, with the exception of the 
portions

[[Page 28807]]

of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to 
PM2.5 increments. EPA's proposed disapproval of North 
Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP submittal as it relates to the 
requirements to comply with EPA's 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, if 
finalized, will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) for EPA to 
promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the date of the 
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency through a SIP 
revision and EPA approves the SIP revision before EPA promulgates such 
a FIP.
    As a result of the proposed disapproval of a portion of the State's 
NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to disapprove the PSD elements of 
the North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 lead, 
2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and the 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and is proposing to convert the Agency's 
previous conditional approvals of the PSD elements of North Carolina's 
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to disapprovals. North Carolina did 
not submit these infrastructure SIPs to meet requirements for Part D of 
the CAA or a SIP call; therefore, if EPA takes final action to 
disapprove the PSD portions of these submittals, no sanctions will be 
triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this proposed disapproval action, 
that final action will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) for 
EPA to promulgate a FIP no later than two years from the date of the 
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency through a SIP 
revision and EPA approves the SIP revision before EPA promulgates such 
a FIP.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action approves, 
in part, and disapproves, in part, state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. EPA is proposing to determine that the PSD 
portion of some of the aforementioned SIP submittals do not meet 
federal requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides.

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

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-10894 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```