Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44873 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS

Iowa citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567] 

*******

Linn County 

Chapter 10 .......................... Linn County Air Quality 

Ordinance, Chapter 

10.

1/30/15 7/28/15 and [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

The following definitions are not SIP-approved 

in Chapter 10.2; Anaerobic lagoon, Biomass, Chemical processing plants (ethanol 

production facilities that produce ethanol by 

natural fermentation included in NAICS 

code 325193 or 312140 are not included in 

this definition); Federally Enforceable; 

Greenhouse gases; Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT); MACT floor. 

The following sections are not SIP approved: 10.4(1), Title V Permits; 10.5(9)‘‘b’’ 

Locally Required Permits; Exemptions from 

the Authorization to Install Permit to Operate Requirements; 10.5(9) ‘‘ll’’, Exemption 

for production painting, adhesive or coating 

units; 10.8(2)‘‘b’’ Emissions From FuelBurning Equipment; Emission Limitation; 

10.8(3) Emissions From Fuel-Burning 

Equipment; Exemptions for Residential 

Heaters Burning Solid Fuels; 10.8(4) Emissions from Fuel-Burning Equipment; Nuisance Conditions for Fuel Burning Equipment; 10.9(2), NSPS; 10.9(3), Emission 

Standards for HAPs; 10.9(4), Emission 

Standards for HAPs for Source Categories; 

10.10(4) Variance from rules; 10.11, Emission of Objectionable Odors; 10.15, 

Variances, 10.17(13) Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring from Acid Rain Program, and 

10.24, Penalty. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–18346 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0275; FRL–9931–28– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas; North Carolina; 

Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock 

Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking three separate 

final actions related to a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Department of Air Quality 

(NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These 

final actions are for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock 

Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 

2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state 

Charlotte Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The bi-state 

Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg 

County in its entirety and portions of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 

Rowan and Union Counties, North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County, 

South Carolina. Regarding South 

Carolina’s request to redesignate the 

South Carolina portion of the Area and 

its maintenance plan for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address 

this in a separate action. In the three 

actions for the North Carolina bi-state 

Charlotte Area, EPA determines that the 

bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 

2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 

approves and incorporates the State’s 

plan for maintaining attainment of the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, 

including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) for 

the North Carolina portion of this Area 

into the SIP; and redesignates the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds 

the 2014 and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area adequate for the 

purposes of transportation conformity. 

DATES: This rule will be effective August 

27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2015–0275. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The supporting comments state that the 2012– 

2014 three-year average ‘‘support[s] attainment’’ 

and that the ‘‘[p]rojected NOX shows decreases in 

all categories over the next decade, so even if the 

predicted large projected decreases in on-road NOX

are not met the area should still see an overall 

decrease in ozone levels.’’ 

2The GG Allen plant is located in the portion of 

Gaston County that is included in the 

nonattainment area. The Marshall plant is located 

in Catawba County and is not located within the 

nonattainment area. During the nonattainment 

designation in 2012, sources in Catawba County 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section 

(formerly the Regulatory Development 

Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background for Final Actions 

On May 21, 2012, EPA designated 

areas as unclassifiable/attainment or 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on 

March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The 

bi-state Charlotte Area was designated 

as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and classified as a 

marginal nonattainment area. On April 

16, 2015, NC DAQ requested that EPA 

redesignate the North Carolina portion 

of the Area to attainment for the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a 

SIP revision containing the State’s plan 

for maintaining attainment of the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard in the Area, 

including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

published on May 21, 2015, EPA 

proposed to determine that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and 

incorporate into the North Carolina SIP 

the State’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard in the Area, including the 2014 

and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 

the North Carolina potion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area; and to redesignate the 

North Carolina portion of the Area to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 80 FR 29250. In that 

document, EPA also notified the public 

of the status of the Agency’s adequacy 

determination for the subarea NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

The details of North Carolina’s 

submittal and the rationale for EPA’s 

actions are further explained in the 

NPR. See 80 FR 29250 (May 21, 2015). 

II. EPA’s Responses to Comments 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on its May 21, 2015, proposed 

rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA 

received adverse comments from the 

Sierra Club (‘‘Commenter’’) and 

comments supporting the proposed 

actions from one member of the general 

public.1 Full sets of these comments are 

provided in the docket for this final 

action. See Docket number EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0275. A summary of the 

adverse comments and EPA’s responses 

are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter asserts 

that North Carolina experienced 

‘‘abnormally cool weather’’ during the 

summers of 2013 and 2014 ‘‘that 

reduced the likelihood of ozone 

formation’’ and that the design values 

for the Area would have exceeded the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard ‘‘but for the 

uncharacteristically cool summers in 

2013 and 2014.’’ Therefore, the 

Commenter believes that EPA ‘‘should 

decline to issue the requested 

attainment determination for the Area.’’ 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s position that weather 

should impact EPA’s determination that 

the area has attained the NAAQS 

pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). 

That factual determination is based 

solely on air quality monitoring data 

and on the Agency’s evaluation of that 

data’s compliance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix P. Therefore, weather 

conditions, including any alleged 

resulting changes in energy demand, are 

irrelevant in determining whether an 

area is factually attaining a NAAQS. 

Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 

50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 

determined by calculating the three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations at an ozone monitor, also 

known as a monitor’s design value. See 

40 CFR part 50, appendix P. When the 

design value is less than or equal to 

0.075 parts per million (ppm) at each 

monitor within the area, then the area 

is attaining the NAAQS. The data 

completeness requirement for 

evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS 

attainment is met at each monitor when 

the average percent of days with valid 

ambient monitoring data is greater than 

or equal to 90 percent and no single year 

has less than 75 percent data 

completeness as defined in appendix P 

of 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring data must 

also be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS). 

EPA’s analysis of monitoring data in 

the bi-state Charlotte Area supports its 

determination under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area has attained 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

design values for each monitor in the 

Area for the years 2012–2014 are less 

than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the data 

from these monitors during this time 

period meet the data quality and 

completeness requirements and are 

recorded in AQS. Therefore, the bi-state 

Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with 

40 CFR part 50, appendix P 

requirements. 

Comment 2: The Commenter believes 

that EPA should disapprove North 

Carolina’s redesignation request because 

‘‘neither EPA nor DAQ has 

demonstrated that the recording of a 

design value below 75 ppb [parts per 

billion] for the years 2012–2014 is ‘due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions’ ’’ as required by CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to 

the Commenter, EPA and NC DAQ 

cannot make this demonstration because 

‘‘but for the uncharacteristically cool 

summers in 2013 and 2014, a design 

value above 75 ppb would have been 

recorded.’’ The Commenter also 

contends that the ‘‘uncharacteristically 

cool summers in 2013 and 2014’’ 

resulted in ‘‘unusually low monthly 

total consumption of electric power’’ 

and ‘‘starkly lower capacity factors’’ 

from Duke Energy’s GG Allen and 

Marshall power plants during those 

summers and notes that ‘‘operation of 

these plants significantly impacts total 

NOX emissions and, thus, overall ozone 

levels.’’ 2 Despite the alleged decrease in 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44875 

were not found to contribute to violations of the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. See http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/

2008standards/documents/R4_Charlotte_TSD_

Final.pdf. 

3http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html. 

4EPA’s use of the phrase ‘‘long-term average’’ 

refers to the 74-year averages identified in Table 1. 

5EPA’s analysis is based on weather data from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(see below). NOAA defines ‘‘normal’’ as the ‘‘longterm average value of a meteorological element for 

a certain area. For example, ‘temperatures are 

normal for this time of year[.]’ Usually averaged 

over 30 years.’’ See http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/

box/glossary.htm. 

6This preliminary data is available at EPA’s air 

data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/

aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list 

of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is 

available under the Designated Area field in Table 

5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

7Ozone is monitored from April 1 through 

October 31 in the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

8EPA obtained this weather data from the NOAA 

NCEI Web site at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/. 

the capacity factors at these two EGUs, 

the Commenter states that ‘‘the plants 

still tend to run at a significantly higher 

capacity factor on peak ozone days.’’ 

Response 2: Weather effects are not 

controllable, and weather is just one of 

the parameters that allow for ozone 

formation. EPA does not disagree with 

the Commenter that ozone season 

temperatures and precipitation are two 

readily available parameters that can be 

used to evaluate the potential weather 

impacts on ozone concentrations. Ozone 

is more readily formed on warm, sunny 

days when the air is stagnant. 

Conversely, ozone production is 

generally more limited when it is 

cloudy, cool, rainy, or windy.3

However, although EPA agrees that the 

Area experienced cooler and wetter 

weather during some of the relevant 

time period, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter that the improvement in air 

quality in the bi-state Charlotte Area 

was solely the result of ‘‘aberrant 

weather.’’ EPA has examined the 

weather data presented by the 

Commenter, and has determined, after 

conducting its own analysis of the 

meteorological conditions and the 

emission reductions occurring during 

the relevant time period, that the 

improvement in air quality in the Area 

was due to those emissions reductions 

in accordance with CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

As noted above, Federal regulations 

require EPA to use a three-year average 

to determine attainment of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The averaging of 

values over three years serves to account 

for some variation in meteorology from 

year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013 

was cooler than the long-term average 

temperature and may have been less 

conducive to the formation of ozone, the 

Agency also notes that the weather 

conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a 

season included in the three-year 

average forming the basis for the 

attainment determination) were warmer 

than the long-term average and were 

more conducive to ozone formation. See 

Table 1, below.4 Furthermore, 

temperatures in the summer of 2014 are 

close to the long-term average 

temperatures. Given the higher than 

long-term average 2012 temperatures 

and the near normal 5 temperatures in 

2014, EPA does not agree with the 

Commenter’s conclusion that 

meteorological conditions during the 

relevant time period were so unusual or 

abnormal such that those conditions 

alone ‘‘provide sufficient justification 

for EPA to reject DAQ’s request for the 

redesignation of the Area from 

nonattainment to attainment.’’ To the 

contrary, the certified data show that the 

Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS from 2012 to 2014, a time 

period with varying meteorological 

conditions. Preliminary monitoring data 

from 2015 also indicates that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area continues to attain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.6

Table 1 provides temperature and 

precipitation data for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons 

(May 1 –September 30) from 2010–2014 

obtained from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Centers for Environmental Information 

(NOAA NCEI).7 Specifically, Table 1 

provides overall average and average 

maximum ozone season temperatures 

and total ozone season precipitation; 

deviation from the 74-year average 

ozone season temperature and 

precipitation (termed the ‘‘anomaly’’); 

and the rank of the given year on the 74- 

year (1940–2014) recorded history list. 

A rank of 74 is given to the hottest or 

wettest year. 

TABLE 1—CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OZONE SEASON (MAY–SEPTEMBER) DATA 8

Year 

Average 

May-September 

temperature 

[degrees F] 

(anomaly from the 

long-term average 

[74.7 degrees F]) 

Rank [since 1940, 

scale of 1–74] 

Average maximum 

May-September 

temperature 

[degrees F] 

(anomaly from the 

long-term average 

[84.9 degrees F]) 

Rank [since 1940, 

scale of 1–74] 

Precipitation 

[inches] 

(anomaly from the 

long-term average 

[18.17 inches]) 

Rank [since 1940, 

scale of 1–74] 

2010 ..................... 78.0 (+3.3) 73 88.8 (+3.9) 73 17.67 (¥0.5) 36 

2011 ..................... 76.2 (+1.5) 64 87.3 (+2.4) 67 22.1 (+3.93) 58 

2012 ..................... 75.3 (+0.6) 52 86.3 (+1.4) 54 18.87 (+0.7) 44 

2013 ..................... 73.9 (¥0.8) 21 83.3 (¥1.6) 12 22.63 (+4.46) 61 

2014 ..................... 74.5 (¥0.2) 32 84.5 (¥0.4) 32 19.01 (+0.84) 46 

The data in Table 1 show that both 

average temperature and precipitation 

varied significantly from 2010–2014. 

The rank and anomaly data in Table 1 

show that average ozone season 

temperatures and precipitation were 

slightly above normal for the year 2012, 

temperatures were below normal and 

precipitation was above normal in 2013, 

and temperatures were near normal and 

precipitation slightly above normal in 

2014. The year 2012 was one of the 

hottest in the recent past across the 

Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat 

wave occurred in late June through early 

July 2012, which resulted in high ozone 

levels measured across the Southeast. 

Based upon the meteorology analysis, 

2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and 

2014 was near normal when compared 

to the long-term average. Therefore, the 

2012–2014 period does not appear to be 

abnormally conducive to low ozone 

formation and does not undermine 

EPA’s analysis that the attainment in the 

bi-state Charlotte Area was due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions. 

EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone 

data and meteorology for May 2015, 

which is the beginning of the ozone 

season in the Area. The Commenter 

provided data to show that the average 

maximum temperature in May 2015 is 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9This preliminary data is available at EPA’s air 

data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/

aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list 

of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is 

available under the Designated Area field in Table 

5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

10EPA estimated that compliance with this rule 

will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel 

engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. 

11 Implementation of this rule is expected to 

achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions 

from diesel trucks and buses. 12When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is 

expected to reduce NOX emissions from the covered 

vehicles by 20 percent. 13When fully implemented, the standards will 

result in an 80 percent reduction in NOX by 2020. 14EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420–F– 

99–051 (December 1999), available at: http://

www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf. 

15 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001). 

16North Carolina used EPA’s MOVES2014 model 

to calculate on-road emissions factors and EPA’s 

NONROAD 2008a model to quantify off-road 

emissions. 

17North Carolina used the interagency 

consultation process required by 40 CFR part 93 

(known as the Transportation Conformity Rule) 

higher than the average maximum May 

temperature over the previous ten years. 

EPA agrees that the average maximum 

temperature in May 2015 was above 

average; in fact, the average maximum 

temperature was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, 

which is 4.2 degrees above average and 

it ranks 67 out of 75 years of recorded 

data in the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

However, even with this abnormally 

warm month, the May 2015 preliminary 

ozone data indicates that no 

exceedances of the 75 ppb ozone 

standard occurred and that the highest 

8-hour average was 72 ppb. This data 

also indicates that although 

meteorological conditions were 

conducive to ozone formation, 

emissions in the Area were low enough 

not to support the formation of ozone 

above a level that would exceed the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, preliminary ozone season 

data available through June 28, 2015, 

indicate that the 4th Highest Maximum 

Daily 8-hour Average value for the bistate Charlotte area monitors from 

March 1, 2015 through June 28, 2015 is 

72 ppb.9

The Commenter’s focus on 

meteorological conditions is 

inconsistent with EPA’s analysis of the 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions that did occur in the area 

during the relevant time period. 

Consistent with EPA’s longstanding 

practice and policy, a comparison of 

nonattainment period emissions with 

attainment period emissions is a 

relevant in demonstrating permanent 

and enforceable emissions reductions. 

EPA evaluated the ozone precursor 

emissions data in the Area and found 

that there were significant reductions in 

these emissions in multiple source 

categories from 2011 (a nonattainment 

year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The 

emissions data show that from 2011 to 

2014, non-road NOX and VOC emissions 

decreased, point source NOX emissions 

decreased, and on-road mobile NOX and 

VOC emissions have decreased 

substantially. During this time period, 

mobile source NOX emissions decreased 

by approximately 54.5 tons per summer 

day (tpsd) (equating to 79 percent of the 

total NOX emissions reductions) and 

mobile source VOC emissions decreased 

by approximately 26.5 tpsd (equating to 

100 percent of the total VOC emissions 

reductions). It is not necessary for every 

change in emissions between the 

nonattainment year and the attainment 

year to be permanent and enforceable. 

Rather, the CAA requires that 

improvement in air quality necessary for 

the area to attain the relevant NAAQS 

must be reasonably attributable to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions in emissions. 

TABLE 2—NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CHARLOTTE 2008 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA

[Tons per summer day] 

Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total 

2011 ..................................................................................... 47.17 6.68 112.13 28.75 194.73 

2014 ..................................................................................... 32.38 11.40 60.15 26.26 130.18 

TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE CHARLOTTE 2008 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA

[Tons per summer day] 

Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total 

2011 ..................................................................................... 11.37 46.69 55.35 24.4 137.81 

2014 ..................................................................................... 12.03 47.88 34.32 18.89 113.12 

The emissions reductions identified 

in Tables 2 and 3, above, are attributable 

to numerous measures implemented 

during this period, including the 

permanent and enforceable mobile 

source measures discussed in the NPR 

such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel 

standards, the large non-road diesel 

engines rule,10 heavy-duty gasoline and 

diesel highway vehicle standards,11

medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel 

consumption and GHG standards,12

non-road spark-ignitions and 

recreational standards,13 and the 

national program for GHG emissions 

and fuel economy standards. These 

mobile source measures have resulted 

in, and continue to result in, large 

reductions in NOX emissions over time 

due to fleet turnover (i.e., the 

replacement of older vehicles that 

predate the standards with newer 

vehicles that meet the standards). For 

example, implementation of the Tier 2 

standards began in 2004, and as newer, 

cleaner cars enter the national fleet, 

these standards continue to significantly 

reduce NOX emissions. EPA expects that 

these standards will reduce NOX

emissions from vehicles by 

approximately 74 percent by 2030, 

translating to nearly 3 million tons 

annually by 2030.14 Implementation of 

the heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 

highway vehicle standards rule also 

began in 2004. EPA projects a 2.6 

million ton reduction in NOX emissions 

by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle 

fleet is completely replaced with newer 

heavy-duty vehicles that comply with 

these emission standards.15

The State calculated the on-road and 

non-road mobile source emissions 

contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPAapproved models and procedures that 

account for the Federal mobile source 

measures identified above, fleet 

turnover, and increased population.16 17


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44877 

which requires EPA, the United States Department 

of Transportation, metropolitan planning 

organizations, state departments of transportation, 

and State and local air quality agencies to work 

together to develop applicable implementation 

plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an 

aggregate of the vehicle activity (generated from the 

travel demand model) on individual roadways 

multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from 

MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included 

in the travel demand model, such as population, 

were reviewed through the interagency consultation 

process. 

Because the model does not include any 

additional mobile source measures, the 

large reductions in mobile source 

emissions quantified in the Area 

between 2011 and 2014 are the result of 

the permanent and enforceable mobile 

source measures listed above and 

discussed in the NPR. 

Regarding the Commenter’s 

discussion of capacity factors at the GG 

Allen and Marshall power plants and 

cooling degree days, the Commenter 

does not attempt to quantify how any 

decreases in these parameters translate 

to decreases in NOX emissions or ozone 

concentrations; therefore, it is unclear 

how the changes in capacity factors and 

cooling degree days support the 

Commenter’s position that EPA cannot 

redesignate the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

The data in Table 2, above, 

demonstrates that the decreases in 

mobile source NOX emissions from 

2011–2014 are much greater than the 

decreases in point-source NOX

emissions. 

In addition, EPA does not believe that 

the cooling degree and capacity factor 

data supports the conclusions reached 

by the Commenter. The Commenter 

presents data showing cooling degree 

days for North Carolina for the past ten 

years and concludes that the cooler 

summers in 2013 and 2014 have 

resulted in a lower demand for air 

conditioning and thus a lower demand 

for electric power. EPA acknowledges 

that the number of cooling degree days 

in 2013 and 2014 and the total 

consumption of electricity in North 

Carolina were lower in 2013 and 2014 

than during 2010, 2011, and 2012. 

However, the Commenter ignores the 

fact that the numbers of cooling degree 

days in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were 

significantly above average. In fact, the 

number of cooling degree days in 2010 

ranks the highest in the 120 years of 

data available for North Carolina and 

2011 ranks the third highest out of those 

120 years. In contrast, the number of 

cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 

were close to the 120-year average— 

2013 is slightly below the average, but 

the 2014 cooling degree days are 

actually above the long-term 120-year 

average. Also, even within the ten years 

of data presented by the Commenter, the 

number of cooling degree days in 2014 

is on par with the number of cooling 

degree days in 2006, 2008, and 2009. 

EPA therefore does not agree with the 

Commenter that the number of cooling 

degree days in 2013 and 2014 

undermines the Agency’s conclusion 

about the causes of the attainment air 

quality in the Area. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

Commenter’s characterization of the 

capacity factor and electric power usage 

data presented in its comments. For 

example, the Commenter provides a 

figure showing total consumption of 

electric power in North Carolina for 

each ozone season for only the last five 

years (2010 through 2014) and 

concludes that the electric power 

consumption in 2013 and 2014 was 

‘‘unusually low’’ using this limited time 

period as its reference point. However, 

as demonstrated by the meteorological 

analysis provided in Table 1 of this final 

action, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are warmer 

than long-term average years. Therefore, 

it is not appropriate to conclude that 

levels in 2013 and 2014 were 

‘‘unusually low’’ without evaluating 

consumption data from a larger time 

period. EPA also notes that the 

Commenter’s conclusion that ozone 

season capacity factors in 2012–2014 at 

the GG Allen and Marshall power plants 

are ‘‘starkly lower than preceding years’’ 

that ‘‘can be attributed, in part to the 

aberrantly mild summer weather and 

the resulting decrease in energy 

demand’’ ignores the fact that 2012 had 

warmer than average summer 

temperatures and still had capacity 

factors at those same units that were 

lower than or comparable to 2014. The 

Commenter’s assertion is also based on 

the limited 2010–2014 time period that 

is not representative of long-term 

meteorological conditions. Therefore, 

the Commenter has not established a 

causal connection between differences 

in ozone season meteorological 

conditions and capacity factors for these 

EGUs. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

does not agree with the Commenter that 

the meteorological data from the 

relevant time period undermines its 

analysis and conclusion that the 

improvement in air quality in the biState Charlotte Area is reasonably 

attributable to the permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

identified by the State and EPA. 

Comment 3: The Commenter states 

that ‘‘as EPA has acknowledged, global 

climate change likely will lead to 

significantly higher summer 

temperatures in the years to come and 

hotter summers, in turn, will lead to 

increased ozone formation.’’ The 

Commenter therefore believes that it is 

‘‘irrational’’ for EPA to approve the 

redesignation request based on data 

from ‘‘two outlying uncharacteristically 

cool summers’’ that ‘‘Charlotte may not 

experience again.’’ 

Response 3: EPA agrees that climate 

change is a serious environmental issue; 

however, EPA does not agree that the 

redesignation and maintenance plan at 

issue are flawed because temperatures 

may increase in the future. Given the 

potential wide-ranging impacts of 

climate change on air quality planning, 

EPA is developing climate adaptation 

implementation plans to assess the key 

vulnerabilities to our programs 

(including how climate change might 

affect attainment of national ambient air 

quality standards) and to identify 

priority actions to minimize these 

vulnerabilities. 

With respect to climate impacts on 

future ozone levels, EPA’s Office of Air 

and Radiation has identified as a 

priority action the need to adjust air 

quality modeling tools and guidance as 

necessary to account for climate-driven 

changes in meteorological conditions 

and meteorologically-dependent 

emissions. However, EPA has not yet 

made those changes. The broad range of 

potential future climate outcomes and 

variability of projected response to these 

outcomes limits EPA’s ability, at this 

time, to translate a general expectation 

that average ozone levels will increase 

with rising temperatures to specific 

‘‘actionable’’ SIP policies at any specific 

location, including the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. Thus, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to rely upon the existing air 

quality modeling tools and guidance 

and applicable CAA provisions to 

ensure that ozone maintenance areas do 

not violate the NAAQS (as a result of 

climate change or any other cause). 

As noted above, EPA is currently 

unable to fully account for the potential 

impact of climate change on ozone 

concentrations in the Area. However, 

there is nothing in the record to suggest 

that the large emissions reductions of 

NOX and VOC projected for the Area 

over the next 10 years would be 

outpaced by the potential increase in 

ozone concentrations caused by climate 

change over the same time period. 

Comment 4: The Commenter contends 

that EPA should not approve the State’s 

maintenance plan because ‘‘DAQ 

selected 2014 as the base year for the 

purpose of its maintenance 

demonstration, which year is not 

representative of air quality conditions 

given aberrant weather, and, thus, 

inappropriately skewed the analysis of 

future air quality toward an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

18See, e.g., Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, to 

Regional Air Directors entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment’’ (September 4, 1992). 

19See Response 2, above, for further discussion 

of these permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions. 

20See, e.g., EPA, Progress Report 2011—Clean Air 

Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former 

NOX Budget Trading Program—Environmental and 

Health Results Report (March 2013), available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/

progressreports/ARPCAIR11_environmental_

health.pdf. 

21 Id. at 12. 

underestimation of future emissions.’’ 

According to the Commenter, EPA 

should ‘‘require DAQ to reevaluate the 

Area’s ability to attain and maintain the 

ozone NAAQS using emissions data 

from a year (or years) in which summer 

weather conditions were more typical.’’ 

Response 4: As discussed in Response 

2, EPA does not agree with the 

Commenter’s assertion that the weather 

in summer 2014 was ‘‘unusually cool’’ 

when the conditions from that year are 

viewed in comparison to a larger data 

set, and therefore does not agree that NC 

DAQ selected an inappropriate base 

year for a maintenance demonstration. 

Furthermore, it is unclear how the 

Commenter concludes that EPA should 

disapprove the maintenance plan even 

if the Agency accepted the Commenter’s 

assertion that the weather in 2014 was 

‘‘aberrant.’’ The maintenance 

demonstration compares base year 

emissions to future year emissions. If 

total future year emissions are above 

total base year emissions, maintenance 

is not demonstrated. For some source 

categories, future year emissions are 

projected using base year emissions; 

however, for other source categories, 

future year emissions projections are 

independent of base year emissions. 

Projected emissions for source 

categories that rely on base year 

emissions will be proportional to base 

year emissions in the same degree 

regardless of the base year emissions 

used. It is therefore more likely that an 

area will fail to demonstrate 

maintenance using a comparison of total 

emissions if the baseline is artificially 

low. In addition, while emissions from 

some source categories may vary as a 

result of weather conditions, the overall 

NOX and VOC emissions released from 

year to year across source categories is 

generally not weather-dependent; 

therefore, weather does not play a 

determinative role in the base year to 

future year emissions comparison. 

Comment 5: The Commenter claims 

that EPA must disapprove the State’s 

maintenance plan because ‘‘it fails to 

specify emissions reductions that are 

permanent and enforceable. The 

proposed plan identifies various state 

and Federal requirements that may 

apply to the major stationary sources of 

air pollution located in and in close 

proximity to the Charlotte Area, 

however, it fails to present any 

assurance that such requirements will 

result in any reduction in emissions.’’ In 

support, the Commenter references 

three requirements—North Carolina’s 

Clean Smokestacks Act and EPA’s Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As to 

these three measures, the Commenter 

states its belief that they are not 

permanent and enforceable because they 

are cap and trade programs that could 

allow for increased NOX emissions at 

Duke Energy’s GG Allen and Marshall 

power plants. The Commenter further 

states that ‘‘DAQ should impose 

enforceable limits on NOX emissions 

from all EGUs [electricity generating 

units] that are based on available and 

demonstrated control technology.’’ 

Response 5: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter. Consistent with EPA 

guidance, the State’s maintenance plan 

identifies a number of permanent and 

enforceable requirements, including 

measures that regulate area, on-road, 

and off-road sources, and discusses the 

emissions reductions associated with 

each measure.18 See 80 FR 29250. In 

discussing the emissions reductions and 

status of these measures, the State has 

provided assurance that these 

requirements will result in emissions 

reductions.19

EPA also disagrees with the 

Commenter’s belief that emission 

reductions associated with the CSA, 

CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent 

and enforceable simply because the 

underlying program is an emissions 

trading program. Cap-and-trade 

programs provide economic incentives 

for early reductions in emissions and 

encourage sources to install controls 

earlier than required for compliance 

with future caps on emissions. The 

flexibility under a cap-and-trade system 

is not about whether to reduce 

emissions; rather, it is about how to 

reduce them at the lowest possible cost. 

Trading programs require total mass 

emission reductions by establishing 

mandatory caps on total emissions to 

permanently reduce the total mass 

emissions allowed by sources subject to 

the programs, validated through 

rigorous continuous emission 

monitoring and reporting regimens. The 

emission caps and associated controls 

are enforced through the associated SIP 

rules or federal implementation plans. 

Any purchase of allowances and 

increase in emissions by one source 

necessitates a corresponding sale of 

allowances and either reduction in 

emissions or use of banked allowances 

by another covered source. 

Given the regional nature of ozone, 

the corresponding NOX emission and/or 

allowance reduction in one affected area 

will have an air quality benefit that will 

compensate, at least in part, for the 

impact of any emission increase in 

another affected area. EPA disagrees 

with any suggestion that only specific 

emission limits on units can be 

considered ‘‘reductions.’’ In fact, the 

information that EPA has evaluated in 

order to conclude that the bi-State 

Charlotte Area has met the criteria for 

redesignation shows that power plant 

emissions in both the Area and the 

surrounding region have substantially 

decreased as a result of cap-and-trade 

programs, including CAIR. The facts 

contradict the theoretical concerns 

raised by the Commenter and show that 

the emission trading programs, 

combined with other controls, have 

improved air quality in the Area. 

Moreover, experience has 

demonstrated that cap and trade 

programs do successfully generate 

lasting emission reductions. For 

example, the NOX SIP Call and CAIR 

have successfully reduced transported 

emissions contributing to ozone 

nonattainment in areas across the 

country. Data collected from long-term 

national air quality monitoring networks 

demonstrate that these regional cap-andtrade programs have resulted in 

substantial achievements in air quality 

caused by emission reductions from 

power sector sources.20 In 2004, EPA 

designated 91 areas in the Eastern half 

of the United States as nonattainment 

for the 8-hour ozone standard adopted 

in 1997, using data from 2001–2003. 

Based on data gathered from 2009–2011, 

90 of these original Eastern 

nonattainment areas show 

concentrations below the 1997 ozone 

standard.21

Many states have sought and continue 

to seek redesignation of their 

nonattainment areas relying in part on 

the reductions attributable to these capand-trade programs. See, e.g., 76 FR 

59600, 59607 (September 27, 2011) 

(proposing to redesignate a portion of 

the Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR 

76302 (December 7, 2011); and 74 FR 

63995 (December 7, 2009) 

(redesignation of Great Smoky Mountain 

National Park for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS). The Commenter’s contention 

that EPA and North Carolina may not 

rely on the substantial emission 

reductions that have already occurred 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44879 

from these rules is based on a faulty and 

rigid interpretation of the CAA would 

impose a major obstacle for 

nonattainment areas across the country 

that have achieved attainment air 

quality because of the reductions 

required by the rules. This would 

unnecessarily undermine a reasonable, 

proven, and cost-effective approach to 

combating regional pollution problems. 

Of the Federally-enforceable rules 

relied upon by North Carolina in its 

redesignation request, the Commenter 

singles out cap-and-trade programs as 

insufficiently permanent and 

enforceable to meet the requirements for 

redesignation. However, as discussed 

above, a number of other permanent and 

enforceable measures have helped 

contribute to the Area’s attainment of 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and 

ensure maintenance of that standard. 

There is inherent flexibility in nearly all 

of these measures, including Federal 

transportation control measures and SIP 

emission rate limits, also known as 

‘‘command-and-control’’ regulations. 

For example, the rules do not and 

cannot account for when and where 

people drive their cars, nor do they 

dictate that consumers in a certain area 

invest in newer, lower-emitting cars. 

Similarly, emission rate limits limit the 

rate of emissions per unit of fuel 

consumed, or parts per million of 

emissions in the exhaust but do not 

regulate throughput or hours of 

operation of the regulated sources. It 

would be unworkable for EPA to 

disqualify a requirement as ‘‘permanent 

and enforceable’’ for the purposes of 

redesignation simply because the 

requirement did not require the exact 

same pollutant emission reduction 

every hour of every day of every year. 

North Carolina relied on a suite of 

requirements that, while inherently 

allowing for some flexibility, has 

collectively served to bring the Area 

into, and to maintain, attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

EPA’s position that cap-and-trade 

programs are permanent and 

enforceable measures under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently upheld by 

two Federal appellate courts. In the 

most recent decision, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

rejected Sierra Club’s argument that 

EPA improperly relied on emissions 

reductions from cap-and-trade programs 

such as the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and 

CSAPR in redesignating the CincinnatiHamilton nonattainment area for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sierra Club v. EPA, 

781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015). This 

decision is consistent with the opinion 

of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Seventh Circuit in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014) that 

EPA could rely on the NOX SIP Call capand-trade program as a permanent and 

enforceable measure in redesignating 

the Milwaukee-Racine, Greater Chicago, 

and St. Louis (Illinois portion) 

nonattainment areas to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA also notes that North Carolina’s 

maintenance plan provides for 

verification of continued attainment by 

performing future reviews of triennial 

emissions inventories and also for 

contingency measures to ensure that the 

NAAQS is maintained into the future if 

monitored increases in ambient ozone 

concentrations occur. See 80 FR 29250. 

For this and the above reasons, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter’s 

position that the State failed to identify 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions in its maintenance plan. 

Regarding the need for additional 

controls at the GG Allen and Marshall 

power plants, EPA has concluded that 

the Area has attained, and will 

maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with the permanent and 

enforceable measures identified in the 

State’s submission and in EPA’s NPR. 

EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam 

Plant is not located within the bi-state 

Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary, 

and is therefore not included in the 

emissions comparison portion of the 

maintenance demonstration. 

Furthermore, continued nonattainment 

status for this Area would not require 

any further emissions controls for either 

power plant under their current 

configurations. 

Comment 6: The Commenter believes 

that redesignating the bi-state Charlotte 

Area would ‘‘eliminate needed 

additional air quality planning 

requirements and jeopardize public 

health by delaying permanent 

attainment for the area.’’ According to 

the Commenter, the Area ‘‘consistently 

records higher asthma rates than the 

entire state. Moreover, the impacts of 

ozone pollution have significant 

environmental justice implications as 

African Americans carry a 

disproportionate asthma burden 

compared with whites in North 

Carolina.’’ The Commenter therefore 

concludes that EPA should not 

redesignate the Area and that ‘‘[b]efore 

making a final decision on whether or 

not to approve DAQ’s redesignation 

request, EPA must evaluate the 

environmental justice implications of 

such action and, if it still determines 

that redesignation is justified, must 

allow for additional public comment on 

any proposed action.’’ 

Response 6: As noted in EPA’s May 

21, 2015 NPR, Executive Order 12898 

establishes Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. These 

final actions do not relax control 

measures on existing sources and 

therefore will not cause emissions 

increases from those sources. Thus, 

these actions will not have an adverse 

human health or environmental effect 

on any individuals, including minority 

or low-income populations. As 

discussed above and in EPA’s May 21, 

2015 NPR, the Area has attained the 

2008 8-hour NAAQS through permanent 

and enforceable measures, emissions in 

the Area are projected to decline 

following the redesignation, and the 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

Area will continue to meet the NAAQS 

for the next ten years and includes 

contingency measures to quickly 

address any NAAQS violations. While 

the Commenter has expressed a general 

concern that this action will ‘‘eliminate 

needed additional air quality planning 

requirements and jeopardize public 

health by delaying permanent 

attainment,’’ the Commenter has not 

identified any specific requirements of 

concern or any specific information on 

the potential emissions impact that 

would arise if those requirements were 

not in place. Such future emission 

impacts are speculative, and to the 

extent that emissions in fact increase in 

the future to levels that would impact 

NAAQS maintenance—which EPA does 

not think will happen—the Agency 

could take future action to address 

actual emissions in the Area. 

III. What are the effects of these 

actions? 

Approval of North Carolina’s 

redesignation request changes the legal 

designation of Mecklenburg County in 

its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, 

Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and 

Union Counties in the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, 

found at 40 CFR 81.334, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of 

North Carolina’s associated SIP revision 

also incorporates a plan for maintaining 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026. 

The maintenance plan establishes NOX

and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

22North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion 

of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for 2026. NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd 

(2650 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd 

(2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC MVEB. After 

allocation of the available safety margin, the 

remaining safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd 

for NOX and 10.15 tpd for VOC. 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area and includes 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and procedures for 

evaluation of potential violations. The 

sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 

along with the allocations from the 

safety margin are provided in the tables 

below.22

TABLE 4—CABARRUS ROWAN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

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

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

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

TABLE 5—GASTON-CLEVELAND-LINCOLN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

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

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

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

TABLE 6—CHARLOTTE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION—ROCKY RIVER RURAL PLANNING

ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS

[kg/day] 

2014 2026 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

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

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

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

IV. Final Actions 

EPA is taking three separate final 

actions regarding the bi-state Charlotte 

Area’s redesignation to attainment and 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that 

the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

monitoring data for the 2012–2014 

monitoring period. 

Second, EPA is approving and 

incorporating the maintenance plan for 

the bi-state Charlotte Area, including 

the sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for 

2014 and 2026, into the North Carolina 

SIP. The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and the sub-area budgets 

meet all of the adequacy criteria 

contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). 

Third, EPA is determining that North 

Carolina has met the criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is approving North Carolina’s 

redesignation request for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. As mentioned above, approval of 

the redesignation request changes the 

official designation of Mecklenburg 

County in its entirety and portions of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 

Rowan and Union Counties in the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

from nonattainment to attainment, as 

found at 40 CFR part 81. 

EPA is also notifying the public that 

EPA finds the newly-established subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs for the bistate Charlotte Area adequate for the 

purpose of transportation conformity. 

Within 24 months from this final rule, 

the transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 

40 CFR 93.104(e). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of the 

maintenance plan under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

required by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

impose any new requirements, but 

rather results in the application of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44881 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state or Federal law. For 

these reasons, these actions: 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not 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 CAA; and 

• Will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Dated: July 17, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding a new entry 

‘‘2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area.

4/16/2015 7/28/2015 [insert Federal Register citation] 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.334, the table entitled 

‘‘North Carolina—2008 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC,’’ 

‘‘Cabarrus County (part),’’ ‘‘Gaston 

County (part),’’ ‘‘Iredell County (part),’’ 

‘‘Lincoln County (part),’’ ‘‘Mecklenburg 

County,’’ ‘‘Rowan County (part),’’ and 

‘‘Union County (part)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.334 North Carolina. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 40 CFR 97.412(a)(4)(i), 97.512(a)(4)(i), 

97.612(a)(4)(i), and 97.712(a)(4)(i). First-round 

NUSA allocations may be affected by first-round 

NUSA over-subscription and rounding. 

NORTH CAROLINA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC 2 ....................................... This action is effective 7/

28/2015.

Attainment 

Cabarrus County (part) .................................................

Central Cabarrus Township, Concord Township, 

Georgeville Township, Harrisburg Township, 

Kannapolis Township, Midland Township, Mount 

Pleasant Township, New Gilead Township, Odell 

Township, Poplar Tent Township, Rimertown Township 

Gaston County (part) 

Crowders Mountain Township, Dallas Township, Gastonia Township, Riverbend Township, South Point 

Township 

Iredell County (part) 

Davidson Township, Coddle Creek Township 

Lincoln County (part) 

Catawba Springs Township, Ironton Township, 

Lincolnton Township 

Mecklenburg County 

Rowan County (part) 

Atwell Township, China Grove Township, Franklin 

Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker Township, 

Locke Township, Providence Township, Salisbury 

Township, Steele Township, Unity Township 

Union County (part) 

Goose Creek Township, Marshville Township, Monroe 

Township, Sandy Ridge Township, Vance Township 

*******

1This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. 

2Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–18345 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 97 

[FRL–9931–40–OAR] 

Allocations of Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule Allowances From New 

Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 

Compliance Year 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of data 

availability (NODA). 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is providing notice of 

emission allowance allocations to 

certain units under the new unit setaside (NUSA) provisions of the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

federal implementation plans (FIPs) and 

is responding to objections to 

preliminary calculations. EPA has 

completed final calculations for the first 

round of NUSA allowance allocations 

for the 2015 compliance year and has 

posted spreadsheets containing the 

calculations on EPA’s Web site. The 

final allocations are unchanged from the 

preliminary calculations. EPA will 

record the allocated allowances in 

sources’ Allowance Management 

System (AMS) accounts by August 1, 

2015. 

DATES: July 28, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions concerning this action should 

be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 

343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or to 

Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or 

smith.kenon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state 

budget for each of the four CSAPR 

emissions trading programs is reserved 

as a NUSA from which allowances are 

allocated to eligible units through an 

annual one- or two-round process. In a 

NODA published in the Federal 

Register on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30988), 

EPA described the allocation process 

and provided notice of preliminary 

calculations for the first-round 2015 

NUSA allowance allocations. EPA also 

described the process for submitting any 

objections to the preliminary 

calculations. 

In response to the June 1 NODA, EPA 

received three timely written objections, 

two late written objections, and several 

telephone inquiries. The objections and 

inquiries all concerned the question of 

whether EPA is correct to exclude 

emissions that occurred before a unit’s 

monitor certification deadline from the 

emissions data used to calculate the 

NUSA allowance allocations. As 

explained below, under the regulations 

such emissions are properly excluded 

because they are not emissions during a 

‘‘control period.’’ 

Under the CSAPR FIPs, an eligible 

unit’s first-round NUSA allowance 

allocation for a given compliance year is 

generally based on the unit’s emissions 

‘‘during the immediately preceding 

control period’’ (that is, the control 

period in the year before the compliance 

year).1 An eligible unit’s second-round 

NUSA allowance allocation for a given 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES