45152 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18026 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0129; FRL–9835–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas; North Carolina; 

Redesignation of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Moderate Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 2, 2011, and 

supplemented on March 28, 2013, the 

State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, 

Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ), 

submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the portion of North 

Carolina that is within the bi-state 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North 

Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area,’’ ‘‘Area,’’ 

or ‘‘Metrolina nonattainment area’’) to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS); and to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan for the 

Area. EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation request for the Area, along 

with the related SIP revisions, including 

North Carolina’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the Area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve a supplemental 

SIP revision, submitted to EPA on 

March 28, 2013, extending the 

maintenance plan to the year 2025 and 

updating motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) for the years 2013 and 2025 for 

the North Carolina portion of the Area. 

These actions are being proposed 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) and its implementing regulations. 

EPA finalized action to redesignate the 

South Carolina portion of the Area, 

including approval of South Carolina’s 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, in a separate action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0129, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0129, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0129. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, 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: Jane 

Spann or Sara Waterson of the 

Regulatory Development Section, in 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. Ms. 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029, or via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. Ms. Waterson may 

be reached by phone at (404) 562–9061, 

or via electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the request? 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s proposed NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of 

the area? 

VII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the 

North Carolina portion of the area? 

VIII. Proposed Action on the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revision Including Proposed Approval 

of the 2013 and 2025 NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion of 

the Area 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45153 

1North Carolina withdrew a June 15, 2007, 

attainment demonstration SIP for its portion of the 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone 

area on December 19, 2008, and committed to 

submit a revised SIP by November 30, 2009. On 

November 12, 2009, North Carolina resubmitted the 

attainment demonstration SIP for the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 

1997 8-hour ozone area. 

2A supplement to the RFP was submitted on 

November 30, 2009. 

IX. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

EPA is proposing to take the following 

two separate but related actions, one of 

which involves multiple elements: (1) 

To redesignate the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; and (2) to approve into the 

North Carolina SIP, under section 175A 

of the CAA, North Carolina’s plan for 

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS 

maintenance plan). EPA’s proposed 

action for the maintenance plan also 

includes proposed approval of the 

associated MVEBs. Through today’s 

rulemaking, EPA is also notifying the 

public of the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the MVEBs for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. The bi-state Charlotte 

Area consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, 

Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union 

and a portion of Iredell County 

(Davidson and Coddle Creek 

Townships), North Carolina; and a 

portion of York County, South Carolina. 

These actions are summarized below 

and described in greater detail 

throughout this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

First, EPA proposes to determine that 

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

requirements for redesignation under 

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

Accordingly, in this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve a request to 

change the legal designation of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union 

Counties in their entireties, and a 

portion of Iredell County (Davidson and 

Coddle Creek Townships) in North 

Carolina from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s November 2, 2011, SIP 

revision (as supplemented by a March 

28, 2013, SIP submittal) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area as meeting the 

requirements of section 175A (such 

approval being one of the CAA criteria 

for redesignation to attainment status). 

The maintenance plan is designed to 

help keep the bi-state Charlotte Area in 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2025. Consistent with 

the CAA, EPA is proposing to take 

action to approve the 2013 and 2025 

MVEBs in North Carolina’s March 28, 

2013, SIP revision. 

EPA is also notifying the public of the 

status of EPA’s adequacy process for the 

newly-established NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. The Adequacy comment period 

for the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area began on February 21, 

2013, with EPA’s posting of the 

availability of North Carolina’s 

submissions on EPA’s Adequacy Web 

site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm#charlotte1111). The 

Adequacy comment period for these 

MVEBs closed on March 25, 2013. 

Please see section VII of this proposed 

rulemaking for further explanation of 

this process and for more details on the 

MVEBs. 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to North 

Carolina’s November 2, 2011, SIP 

revision (as supplemented by a March 

28, 2013, SIP submission). These SIP 

revisions address the specific issues 

summarized above and the necessary 

elements described in section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for 

redesignation of the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, 

April 30, 2004). Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet a data completeness 

requirement. The ambient air quality 

monitoring data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness as 

determined in Appendix I of part 50. 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA 

to designate as nonattainment any area 

that is violating the NAAQS, based on 

the three most recent years of complete, 

quality assured, and certified ambient 

air quality data at the conclusion of the 

designation process. The bi-state 

Charlotte Area was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 

(effective June 15, 2004) using 2001– 

2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 

23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of 

designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area 

was classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, 

Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, 

EPA established ozone nonattainment 

area attainment dates based on Table 1 

of section 181(a) of the CAA. This 

established an attainment date six years 

after the June 15, 2004, effective date for 

areas classified as moderate areas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

designations. Section 181 of the CAA 

explains that the attainment date for 

moderate nonattainment areas shall be 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than six years after designation, or 

June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s original attainment date 

was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004. 

On November 12, 2009,1 North 

Carolina submitted an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, 2 contingency measures, a 

2002 base year emissions inventory, and 

other planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the North Carolina portion of 

the Area. North Carolina submitted a 

supplement to the attainment 

demonstration on April 5, 2010, which 

provided supplemental information 

including the 2009 ambient air quality 

data (showing that the area qualified for 

a one-year extension to the attainment 

date). 

The bi-state Charlotte Area did not 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment 

date for moderate nonattainment areas); 

however, the Area qualified for an 

extension of the attainment date. Under 

certain circumstances, the CAA allows 

for extensions of the attainment dates 

prescribed at the time of the original 

nonattainment designation. In 

accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5), 

EPA may grant up to two one-year 

extensions of the attainment date under 

specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45154 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

EPA determined that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area met the CAA 

requirements to obtain a one-year 

extension of the attainment date for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR 

31245. As a result, EPA extended the bistate Charlotte Area’s attainment date 

from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On November 2, 2011, North Carolina 

requested redesignation of the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The redesignation 

request included three years of 

complete, quality-assured ambient air 

quality data for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for 2008–2010, indicating that 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS had 

been achieved for the Area. Under the 

CAA, nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient, 

complete, quality-assured data is 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

Subsequently, on November 15, 2011 

(76 FR 70656), EPA determined that the 

bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

determination of attaining data was 

based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data for the 2008–2010 period, showing 

that the Area had monitored attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

requirements for the Area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the standard were 

suspended as a result of the 

determination of attainment, so long as 

the Area continues to attain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.918 

and 52.2125(a). The Area attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with 2009– 

2011 data, and preliminary data indicate 

that the Area continues to attain with 

2010–2012 data. 

On January 12, 2012, North Carolina 

withdrew the North Carolina portion of 

the Area’s attainment demonstration 

(except RFP, emissions statements, and 

the emissions inventory) as allowed by 

40 CFR 51.918. Therefore, EPA was not 

required to take action on the 

aforementioned portion of the 

attainment demonstration. EPA 

approved the emissions statements 

portion of the attainment demonstration 

SIP revision on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 

24382). Additionally, EPA approved the 

baseline emissions inventory portion of 

the attainment demonstration SIP 

revision on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441). 

EPA approved the RFP portion on 

October 12, 2012 (77 FR 62159). 

The March 28, 2013, supplemental 

SIP revision extends the final year of the 

maintenance plan to 2025. Specifically, 

this revision updates emissions data, 

emissions projections, MVEBs, and 

safety margins to 2025. Additionally, it 

provides updated ozone design values 

for the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

the Administrator has fully approved 

the applicable implementation plan for 

the area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided 

guidance on redesignation in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), 

and supplemented this guidance on 

April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from 

Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support 

Division, June 18, 1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of 

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ 

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, June 1, 1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni 

Memorandum’’); 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from 

Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993; 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

November 30, 1993; 

9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995; and 

11. ‘‘Next Steps for Pending Redesignation 

Requests and State Implementation Plan 

Actions Affected by the Recent Court 

Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule,’’ Memorandum from 

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, 

November 19, 2012. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these 

actions? 

On November 2, 2011, and later 

supplemented on March 28, 2013, the 

State of North Carolina, through NC 

DAQ, requested the redesignation of the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s 

evaluation indicates that the entire bistate Charlotte Area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that 

North Carolina meets the requirements 

for redesignation for its portion of the 

bi-state Charlotte Area as set forth in 

section 107(d)(3)(E), including the 

maintenance plan requirements under 

section 175A of the CAA. As a result, 

EPA is proposing to take the two related 

actions summarized in section I of this 

notice. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45155 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

As stated above, in accordance with 

the CAA, EPA proposes in today’s 

action to: (1) Redesignate the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS; and (2) approve the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS maintenance plan, including 

the associated MVEBs, into the North 

Carolina SIP. These actions are based 

upon EPA’s determination that the 

entire bi-state Charlotte Area continues 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and that all other redesignation criteria 

have been met for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

The five redesignation criteria provided 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are 

discussed in greater detail for the Area 

in the following paragraphs of this 

section. 

Criteria (1)—The Bi-ustate Charlotte 

Area Has Attained the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS 

For ozone, an area may be considered 

to be attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS if it meets the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 

Appendix I of part 50, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year 

average of the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each 

monitor within an area over each year 

must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the 

data handling and reporting convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I, the NAAQS are attained if the design 

value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. The monitors generally 

should have remained at the same 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

As mentioned above, on November 

15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined 

that the bi-state Charlotte Area was 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. For that action, EPA reviewed 

ozone monitoring data from monitoring 

stations in the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

2008–2010. These data have been 

quality-assured and are recorded in 

AQS. EPA has reviewed the 2009–2011 

certified and 2010–2012 preliminary 

data which indicate that the Area 

continues to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS beyond the submitted 3- 

year attainment period of 2008–2010. 

The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average 

for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the 3-year 

average of these values (i.e., design 

values), are summarized in the 

following Table 1 of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

TABLE 1—2008–2010 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA * 

[Parts per million] 

Location County Monitor ID 

Annual arithmetic mean concentrations 

(ppm) 

3-year 

design 

values 

(ppm) 

2008 2009 2010 

2008–2010 

Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station.Lincoln ................. 37–109–0004 0.079 0.065 0.072 0.072 

Garinger High School ........................ Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–0041 0.085 0.069 0.082 0.078 

Westinghouse Blvd ............................ Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–1005 0.073 0.068 0.078 0.073 

29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. ........... Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–1009 0.093 0.071 0.082 0.082 

Rockwell ............................................. Rowan ................. 37–159–0021 0.084 0.071 0.077 0.077 

Enochville School .............................. Rowan ................. 37–159–0022 0.082 0.073 0.078 0.077 

Monroe Middle School ....................... Union ................... 37–179–0003 0.08 0.067 0.071 0.072 

* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 2—2009–2011 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA * 

[Parts per million] 

Location County Monitor ID 

4th Highest 8-hour ozone value 3-year 

design 

values 

2009 2010 2011 

2009–2011 

Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station.Lincoln ................. 37–109–0004 0.065 0.072 0.077 0.071 

Garinger High School ........................ Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–0041 0.069 0.082 0.088 0.079 

Westinghouse Blvd ............................ Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–1005 0.068 0.078 0.082 0.076 

29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. ........... Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–1009 0.071 0.082 0.083 0.078 

Rockwell ............................................. Rowan ................. 37–159–0021 0.071 0.077 0.077 0.075 

Enochville School .............................. Rowan ................. 37–159–0022 0.073 0.078 0.078 0.076 

Monroe Middle School ....................... Union ................... 37–179–0003 0.067 0.071 0.073 0.07 

* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45156 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3The monitor with the highest 3 year design 

value is considered the design value for the area. 

4On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call, 

North Carolina developed rules governing the 

control of NOX emissions from electric generating 

units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, 

major cement kilns, and internal combustion 

engines. On October 5, 2007, EPA approved North 

Carolina’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP 

Call (72 FR 56914). 

5On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which requires significant 

reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

NOX from certain electric generating units in the 

eastern United States to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine 

particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 

76 FR 70093. The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 

initially vacated CAIR in North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur in North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 

2008) to preserve the environmental benefits 

provided by CAIR. In response to the court’s 

decision, EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 21, 2012, the 

D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. 

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

7 (D.C. Cir., 2012). In that decision, the court also 

ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR 

‘‘pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.’’ 

TABLE 3—2010–2012 DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE 1997 8-HOUR OZONE AREA * 

[Parts per million] 

Location County Monitor ID 

4th Highest 8-hour ozone value 3-year 

design 

values 

2010 2011 2012 

2010–2012 

Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station.Lincoln ................. 37–109–0004 0.072 0.077 0.076 0.075 

Garinger High School ........................ Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–0041 0.082 0.088 0.080 0.083 

Westinghouse Blvd ............................ Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–1005 0.078 0.082 0.073 0.077 

29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. ........... Mecklenburg ........ 37–119–1009 0.082 0.083 0.085 0.083 

Rockwell ............................................. Rowan ................. 37–159–0021 0.077 0.077 0.080 0.078 

Enochville School .............................. Rowan ................. 37–159–0022 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.077 

Monroe Middle School ....................... Union ................... 37–179–0003 0.071 0.073 0.075 0.073 

* An ozone monitor is located in York County, SC; however, it is outside of the nonattainment area. This monitor is monitoring attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The 3-year design value for 2008– 

2010 submitted by North Carolina for 

redesignation of its portion of the bistate Charlotte Area is 0.082 ppm at the 

29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co. monitor,3

which meets the NAAQS as described 

above. As mentioned above, on 

November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA 

published a clean data determination for 

the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 2009–2011 

certified data show that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area continues to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a 

design value of 0.079 ppm at the 

Garinger High School monitor. After 

review of the certified 2010–2012 data, 

the Area continues to attain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS with a design value 

of 0.083 ppm at the Garinger High 

School and 29 N at Mecklenburg Cab 

Co. monitors. In today’s action, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the bi-state 

Charlotte Area is attaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will not go 

forward with the redesignation if the bistate Charlotte Area does not continue 

to attain the NAAQS until the time that 

EPA finalizes the redesignation. As 

discussed in more detail below, the 

State of North Carolina has committed 

to continue monitoring in this Area in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

Criteria (2)—North Carolina Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for 

the North Carolina Portion of the 

Charlotte Area; and Criteria (5)—North 

Carolina Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of Title I of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the state has met 

all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D of title I of the 

CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and 

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) for the area (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes 

to find that North Carolina has met all 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

North Carolina portion of the Area 

under section 110 of the CAA (general 

SIP requirements) for purposes of 

redesignation. Additionally, EPA 

proposes to find that the North Carolina 

SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets 

applicable SIP requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas) in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, 

EPA proposes to determine that the SIP 

is fully approved with respect to all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, EPA ascertained which 

requirements are applicable to the Area 

and, if applicable, that they are fully 

approved under section 110(k). SIPs 

must be fully approved only with 

respect to requirements that were 

applicable prior to submittal of the 

complete redesignation request. 

a. The North Carolina Portion of the 

Charlotte Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

General SIP requirements. General SIP 

elements and requirements are 

delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, 

part A of the CAA. These requirements 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: Submittal of a SIP that has 

been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs); provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

the interstate transport of air pollutants 

(e.g., NOX SIP Call 4 and the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) 5). The section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45157 

EPA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the 

U.S. Supreme Court on March 29, 2013, to review 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. On 

June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the 

United States’ petition asking the Court to review 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on CSAPR. 

However,the Agency will continue to act in 

accordance with EME Homer City pending final 

resolution of the CSAPR litigation. 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification in that state. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classifications are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. The 

transport SIP submittal requirements, 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area in the state. 

Thus, EPA does not believe that the 

CAA’s interstate transport requirements 

should be construed to be applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. However, as discussed 

later in this notice, addressing pollutant 

transport from other states is an 

important part of the maintenance 

demonstration for the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. 

In addition, EPA believes that other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

attainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements that are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of 

conformity and oxygenated fuels 

requirements, as well as with section 

184 ozone transport requirements. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 

50399, October 19, 2001). 

EPA completed rulemaking on a 

December 12, 2007, submittal and a 

clarification in a June 20, 2008, 

submission addressing ‘‘infrastructure 

SIP’’ elements required under CAA 

section 110(a)(2) on February 6, 2012. 

See 77 FR 5703. However, these are 

statewide requirements that are not a 

consequence of the nonattainment 

status of the North Carolina portion of 

the Area. As stated above, EPA believes 

that section 110 elements not linked to 

an area’s nonattainment status are not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Therefore, EPA believes 

it has approved all SIP elements under 

section 110 that must be approved as a 

prerequisite for redesignating the North 

Carolina portion of the Area to 

attainment. 

Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable 

SIP requirements. Sections 172(c)(1) 

through (9) and section 176 of subpart 

1, part D of the CAA, set forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). Subpart 2 of part D, 

which includes section 182 of the CAA, 

establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

ozone nonattainment classification. A 

thorough discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 182 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498). 

Part D Subpart 1 Section 172 

Requirements and Part D, Subpart 2 

Section 182 Requirements. Section 

172(c)(1) requires the plans for all 

nonattainment areas to provide for the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards. 

EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all nonattainment 

areas to consider all available control 

measures and to adopt and implement 

such measures as are reasonably 

available for implementation in each 

area as components of the area’s 

attainment demonstration. Under 

section 172, states with nonattainment 

areas must submit plans providing for 

timely attainment and meeting a variety 

of other requirements. Section 182 of 

the CAA, found in subpart 2 of part D, 

establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

ozone nonattainment classification. For 

purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

part D, subpart 2 SIP requirements for 

all moderate nonattainment areas are 

contained in sections 182(b)(1)–(5). 

However, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, 

EPA’s November 15, 2011, 

determination that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area was attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS suspended North 

Carolina’s obligation to submit most of 

the attainment planning requirements 

that would otherwise apply. 

Specifically, the determination of 

attainment suspended North Carolina’s 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration and planning SIPs to 

provide for RACM under section 

172(c)(1), contingency measures under 

section 172(c)(9) and RFP under section 

182(b)(1) of the CAA. 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992) also discusses the 

evaluation of the section 172 and 182 

requirements in the context of EPA’s 

consideration of a redesignation request. 

The General Preamble sets forth EPA’s 

view of applicable requirements for 

purposes of evaluating redesignation 

requests when an area is attaining a 

standard (General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992)). 

Because attainment has been reached 

in the bi-state Charlotte Area, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and section 

172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACM are no longer 

considered to be applicable for purposes 

of redesignation as long as the Area 

continues to attain the standard until 

redesignation. See also 40 CFR 51.918. 

Pursuant to sections 172(c)(2) and 

182(b)(1), nonattainment plans for areas 

classified as moderate and above for 

ozone must contain provisions that 

require reasonable further progress 

toward attainment. These requirements 

are not relevant for purposes of 

redesignation because EPA has 

determined that the bi-state Charlotte 

Area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 40 CFR 

51.918. While it is not a requirement for 

redesignation, EPA took action to 

approve North Carolina’s RFP for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

State’s portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area on October 12, 2012. See 77 FR 

62159. 

Section 172(c)(3) and section 182(b) 

require submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions. Section 

182(b) references section 182(a) of the 

CAA which requires, in part, for states 

to submit a current inventory of actual 

emissions (182(a)(1)). As part of North 

Carolina’s attainment demonstration for 

the North Carolina portion of the Area, 

NC DAQ submitted a 2002 base year 

emissions inventory. EPA approved the 

2002 base year inventory submitted 

with the attainment demonstration on 

May 4, 2012, as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) and section 182(b) (182(a)(1)) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6 40 CFR 51.912 identifies the requirements that 

apply for RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

7EPA approved South Carolina’s RACT SIP 

revisions and concluded that the South Carolina 

portion of the Area has met all the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for making a negative 

declaration regarding Groups I, II, III, and IV CTG 

and meets the requirements of section 182(b)(2) 

applicable for purposes of redesignation. See 76 FR 

72844. 

emissions inventory requirement. See 

77 FR 26441. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowed emissions from major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) and section 182(b) 

that require permits for the construction 

and operation of new and modified 

major stationary sources anywhere in 

the nonattainment area. EPA has 

determined that, because PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ North 

Carolina has demonstrated that the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area will be able to maintain 

the NAAQS without part D NSR in 

effect, and therefore North Carolina 

need not have fully approved part D 

NSR programs prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. Nonetheless, 

North Carolina currently has an 

approved part D NSR program in place. 

North Carolina’s PSD program will 

become applicable in the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 

upon redesignation to attainment. 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA 

believes the North Carolina SIP meets 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 182(b) references, in part, 

section 182(a)(3), which requires states 

to submit periodic inventories and 

emissions statements. Section 

182(a)(3)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to submit a periodic inventory every 

three years. The periodic emissions 

inventory is discussed in more detail in 

Criteria (4)(e), Verification of Continued 

Attainment. 

Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA 

requires states with areas designated 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to 

submit a SIP revision to require 

emissions statements to be submitted to 

the state by sources within that 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

North Carolina’s emissions statements 

requirement on August 1, 1997, and 

approved the updated counties on April 

24, 2012. See 64 FR 41277 and 77 FR 

24382, respectively. EPA believes the 

North Carolina SIP meets the 

requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires 

states with areas designated 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to 

submit a SIP revision to require 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for all major VOC and NOX

sources and for each category of VOC 

sources in the Area covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

document.6

The CTGs established by EPA are 

guidance to the states and provide 

recommendations only. A state can 

develop its own strategy for what 

constitutes RACT for the various CTG 

categories, and EPA will review that 

strategy in the context of the SIP process 

and determine whether it meets the 

RACT requirements of the CAA and its 

implementing regulations. If no major 

sources of VOC or NOX emissions 

(which should be considered separately) 

or no sources in a particular source 

category exist in an applicable 

nonattainment area, a state may submit 

a negative declaration for that category. 

North Carolina did a RACT analysis 

for major VOC and NOX sources in the 

Area and determined that these sources 

in the bi-state Charlotte Area meet 

RACT. In addition, EPA did a NOX

RACT analysis of the North Carolina 

portion of the Charlotte Area major 

sources and determined that these 

sources meet RACT. North Carolina also 

made a negative declaration for CTG 

category sources in the June 15, 2007, 

SIP submittal. On May 9, 2013, EPA 

approved a number of North Carolina 

NOX RACT SIP revisions and approved 

in part and conditionally approved in 

part a number of VOC RACT SIP 

revisions. See 78 FR 27065. 

North Carolina submitted a SIP 

revision on May 1, 2013, to EPA to 

address the requirements of the 

conditional approval to correct the 

deficiencies for which EPA proposed 

conditional approval related to North 

Carolina’s RACT submission. On June 7, 

2013, EPA proposed to approve portions 

of North Carolina’s May 1, 2013, SIP 

revision which included changes to the 

State’s RACT rules to correct 

deficiencies and add new changes. See 

78 FR 34306. EPA did not receive any 

comments, adverse or otherwise, on the 

June 7, 2013, proposed rulemaking 

related to North Carolina’s May 1, 2013, 

SIP revision. On July 12, 2013, the 

Acting Regional Administrator for EPA 

Region 4 signed a final rulemaking 

approving North Carolina’s May 1, 2013, 

SIP revision to correct deficiencies for 

North Carolina RACT requirements. 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

North Carolina’s SIP meets the section 

182(b)(2) requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation.7

Under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the requirements of 

section 182(b)(3) do not apply in 

moderate ozone nonattainment areas 

after EPA promulgated the onboard 

refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) 

standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 

16262), codified at 40 CFR parts 86 

(including 86.098–8), 88 and 600. As 

mentioned above, the bi-state Charlotte 

Area was designated as a moderate area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

therefore was not subject to the Stage II 

requirements as set forth in section 

182(b)(3). 

Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires 

states with areas designated 

nonattainment with moderate or above 

classification for the ozone NAAQS to 

submit SIPs requiring inspection and 

maintenance of vehicles (I/M). North 

Carolina’s I/M rule for the North 

Carolina portion of the nonattainment 

area, called the Clean Air Bill, was 

submitted to EPA on August 7, 2002, 

and approved by EPA on October 30, 

2002 (67 FR 66056), effective December 

30, 2002. EPA believes that the North 

Carolina SIP meets the requirements of 

section 182(b)(4) applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. 

Section 182(b)(5) of the CAA requires 

that for purposes of satisfying the 

emission offset requirements of Part D, 

the ratio of total emission reductions of 

VOCs to total increase emissions of 

VOCs must be at least 1.15 to 1. North 

Carolina currently requires these offsets. 

See 40 CFR 52.1770. EPA therefore 

believes that the North Carolina SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

182(b)(5) applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements. Section 176(c) of the 

CAA requires states to establish criteria 

and procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45159 

8CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

Federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from the MVEBs that 

are established in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects that are developed, funded, or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federally 

supported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement, and enforceability that 

EPA promulgated pursuant to its 

authority under the CAA. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements 8 as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 

(upholding this interpretation); see also 

60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Tampa, Florida). 

For all of the reasons discussed above, 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area has satisfied all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 and 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

b. The North Carolina Portion of the BiState Charlotte Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals 

in approving a redesignation request 

(see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; 

Northwestern Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action 

(see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations therein). Following passage of 

the CAA of 1970, North Carolina has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved at various times, 

provisions addressing various 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS SIP elements 

applicable in the North Carolina portion 

of the Area (May 31, 1972, 37 FR 10842; 

July 13, 2011, 76 FR 41111). For 

example, EPA approved the emissions 

statements portion of the attainment 

demonstration SIP revision on April 24, 

2012 (77 FR 24382), and the baseline 

emissions inventory portion of the 

attainment demonstration SIP revision 

on May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26441). 

On April 29, 2013, EPA signed a 

Federal Register notice approving inpart and conditionally approving in-part 

the RACT demonstration for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. See 78 FR 27065 (May 9, 2013). 

On May 1, 2013, North Carolina 

submitted a SIP revision to meet the 

aforementioned conditional approval. 

EPA proposed to approve North 

Carolina’s May 1, 2013, RACT SIP 

revision that fulfills the conditional 

approval on June 7, 2013. See 78 FR 

34306. EPA did not receive any 

comments, adverse or otherwise, on the 

June 7, 2013, proposed rulemaking 

related to North Carolina’s May 1, 2013, 

SIP revision. On July 12, 2013, the 

Acting Regional Administrator for EPA 

Region 4 signed a final rulemaking 

approving North Carolina’s May 1, 2013, 

SIP revision to correct deficiencies for 

North Carolina RACT requirements. 

As indicated above, EPA believes that 

the section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked to an area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68 FR 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS). 

Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Nonattainment Area Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA believes that 

North Carolina has demonstrated that 

the observed air quality improvement in 

the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other state adopted 

measures. 

State, local, and Federal measures 

enacted in recent years have resulted in 

permanent emission reductions. Most of 

these emission reductions are 

enforceable through regulations. A few 

non-regulatory measures also result in 

emission reductions. 

The state and local measures that 

have been implemented to date and 

relied upon by North Carolina to 

demonstrate attainment and/or 

maintenance include the Clean Air Bill 

I/M program; open burning ban; NOX

SIP Call; Clean Smokestacks Act; and 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) 

grants for repower or replacement of 

existing diesel engines. Local measures 

implemented by Mecklenburg County 

Air Quality (MCAQ) include prohibition 

of open burning of any kind and diesel 

engine emission reductions. Of these 

measures, the Clean Air Bill I/M 

program, open burning ban, NOX SIP 

Call and Clean Smokestacks Act are 

permanent and enforceable. The Federal 

measures that have been implemented 

include the following: 

Tier 2 vehicle standards. 

Implementation began in 2004 and will 

require all passenger vehicles in any 

manufacturer’s fleet to meet an average 

standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile. 

Additionally, in January 2006 the sulfur 

content of gasoline was required to be 

on average 30 ppm which assists in 

lowering the NOX emissions. Most 

gasoline sold in North Carolina prior to 

January 2006 had a sulfur content of 

about 300 ppm. These emission 

reductions are federally enforceable. 

Large Non-road Diesel Engines Rule. 

This rule was promulgated in 2004, and 

is being phased in between 2008 

through 2014. This rule will also reduce 

the sulfur content in the nonroad diesel 

fuel. When fully implemented, this rule 

will reduce NOX, VOC, particulate 

matter, and carbon monoxide. These 

emission reductions are federally 

enforceable. 

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 

highway vehicle standards. These 

standards began to take effect in 2004 

and are designed to reduce NOX and 

VOC emissions. These emission 

reductions are federally enforceable. 

Nonroad spark-ignition engines and 

recreational engines standards. The 

nonroad spark-ignition and recreational 

engine standards, effective in July 2003, 

regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon 

monoxide from groups of previously 

unregulated nonroad engines. These 

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

airport ground service equipment), 

recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway 

motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), 

and recreational marine diesel engines 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9For the purposes of this document, the 

Metrolina region refers to the Charlotte 

metropolitan area and is inclusive of the bi-state 

Charlotte nonattainment area. 

sold in the United States and imported 

after the effective date of these 

standards. 

When all of the nonroad sparkignition and recreational engine 

standards are fully implemented, an 

overall 72 percent reduction in 

hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in 

NOX, and 56 percent reduction in 

carbon monoxide emissions are 

expected by 2020. These controls will 

help reduce ambient concentrations of 

ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine 

particulate matter. 

NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call 

created the NOX Budget Trading 

Program designed to reduce the amount 

of ozone that crosses state lines. By the 

end of 2008, ozone season emissions 

dropped by 62 percent from 2000 at all 

sources subject to the NOX SIP Call 

(EPA, NOX Budget Trading Program: 

2008 Highlights, October 2009, page 3, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/

airmarkets/progress/NBP_4/NBP_2008_

Highlights.pdf). It follows that the bistate Charlotte Area benefited from 

these overall reductions, since it is part 

of the larger NOX SIP Call area. North 

Carolina provided the NOX emission 

reductions, as the result of the NOX SIP 

Call rule, from North Carolina power 

plants in the bi-state Charlotte Area, as 

well as the power plants located directly 

north and west of the Metrolina region 9

that may impact the Area in the March 

28, 2013, submittal. There are four 

facilities located within the North 

Carolina portion of the Area located in 

Gaston, Lincoln and Rowan Counties. 

The facility west of the Metrolina region 

is Cliffside, located in Cleveland 

County, and the facility north of the 

Metrolina region is Marshall, located in 

Catawba County. This data is also from 

the EPA Clean Air Markets Division’s 

database and represents the second and 

third quarters of the year (April through 

September), the period during which 

ozone levels are the highest. Two coalfired power plants (Buck and 

Riverbend) were retired on April 1, 

2013, and will result in additional 

emissions reductions. 

EPA has considered the relationship 

of the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area’s maintenance plan 

to the reductions currently required 

pursuant to CAIR. CAIR was remanded 

to EPA, and the process of developing 

a replacement rule is ongoing. However, 

the remand of CAIR does not alter the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call, and 

the State has now demonstrated that the 

bi-state Charlotte Area can maintain 

without CAIR. Therefore, EPA believes 

that the State’s demonstration of 

maintenance under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E) remains valid. 

The NOX SIP Call requires states to 

make significant, specific emissions 

reductions. It also provides a 

mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading 

Program, that states could use to achieve 

those reductions. When EPA 

promulgated CAIR, it discontinued 

(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but 

created another mechanism—the CAIR 

ozone season trading program—which 

states could use to meet their SIP Call 

obligations, 70 FR 25289–90. EPA notes 

that a number of states, when 

submitting SIP revisions to require 

sources to participate in the CAIR ozone 

season trading program, removed the 

SIP provisions that required sources to 

participate in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program. In addition, because the 

provisions of CAIR including the ozone 

season NOX trading program remain in 

place during the remand, EPA is not 

currently administering the NOX Budget 

Trading Program. Nonetheless, all 

states, regardless of the current status of 

their regulations that previously 

required participation in the NOX

Budget Trading Program, will remain 

subject to all of the requirements in the 

NOX SIP Call even if the existing CAIR 

ozone season trading program is 

withdrawn or altered. In addition, the 

anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 

51.905(f) specifically provide that the 

provisions of the NOX SIP Call, 

including the statewide NOX emission 

budgets, continue to apply after 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that 

currently satisfy their obligations under 

the NOX SIP Call; the NOX SIP Call 

reduction requirements are being met; 

and EPA will continue to enforce the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call even 

after any response to the CAIR remand. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that 

regardless of the status of the CAIR 

program, the NOX SIP Call requirements 

can be relied upon in demonstrating 

maintenance. Here, the State has 

demonstrated maintenance based in part 

on those requirements. 

CAIR and CSAPR. CAIR remains in 

place and enforceable until substituted 

by a ‘‘valid’’ replacement rule. 

Regardless of the timing of the transition 

from CAIR to CSAPR, or a resulting 

court-ordered interstate transport 

remedy, emissions of NOX and SO2 have 

declined significantly and are expected 

to continue to decrease in the future due 

to the continuation of CAIR and North 

Carolina’s own EGU emissions rules. 

To the extent that the North Carolina 

submittal relies on CAIR reductions that 

occurred through 2012, the recent 

directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d. 7 (D.C. Cir., 2012) ensures that the 

reductions associated with CAIR will be 

permanent and enforceable for the 

necessary time period for purposes of 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and North 

Carolina’s request to redesignate the 

Charlotte Area and seek approval of its 

maintenance plan and other 

requirements associated with 

redesignation. EPA has been ordered by 

the court to develop a new rule, and the 

opinion makes clear that after 

promulgating that new rule EPA must 

provide states an opportunity to draft 

and submit SIPs to implement that rule. 

CAIR thus cannot be replaced until EPA 

has promulgated a final rule through a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process, states have had an opportunity 

to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has 

reviewed the SIPs to determine if they 

can be approved, and EPA has taken 

action on the SIPs, including 

promulgating a Federal Implementation 

Plan, if appropriate. The court’s clear 

instruction to EPA is that it must 

continue to administer CAIR until a 

‘‘valid replacement’’ exists and thus 

CAIR reductions may be relied upon 

until the necessary actions are taken by 

EPA and states to administer CAIR’s 

replacement. Furthermore, the court’s 

instruction provides an additional 

backstop; by definition, any rule that 

replaces CAIR and meets the court’s 

direction would require upwind states 

to have SIPs that eliminate significant 

contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and prevent interference 

with maintenance in downwind areas. 

Further, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated 

reliance interests include the interests of 

states who reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR, which brought certain 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with the NAAQS. If EPA were 

prevented from relying on reductions 

associated with CAIR in redesignation 

actions, states would be forced to 

impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45161 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes such as 

redesignation. Following promulgation 

of the replacement rule, EPA will 

review SIPs as appropriate to identify 

whether there are any issues that need 

to be addressed. In light of these unique 

circumstances and for the reasons 

explained above, EPA is proposing to 

approve the redesignation request and 

related SIP revisions for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. EPA continues to implement CAIR 

in accordance with current direction 

from the court, and thus CAIR is in 

place and enforceable and will remain 

so until substituted by a valid 

replacement rule. North Carolina’s SIP 

revision lists CAIR as a control measure, 

which was approved by EPA on October 

5, 2007, 72 FR 56914, for the purpose 

of reduction SO2 and NOX emissions. 

Criteria (4)—The North Carolina Portion 

of the Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 175A of the CAA 

(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for the maintenance 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at 

least 10 years after the effective date of 

redesignation to attainment. EPA 

believes that this maintenance plan 

meets the requirements for approval 

under section 175A of the CAA. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 1997 8-hour ozone violations. 

The Calcagni Memorandum provides 

further guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, explaining that a 

maintenance plan should address five 

requirements: The attainment emissions 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. As 

is discussed more fully below, EPA 

finds that North Carolina’s maintenance 

plan includes all the necessary 

components and is thus proposing to 

approve it as a revision to the North 

Carolina SIP. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

The bi-state Charlotte Area attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 

quality-assured monitoring data for the 

3-year period from 2008–2010. North 

Carolina selected 2010 as the attainment 

emissions inventory year. The 

attainment inventory identifies a level 

of emissions in the Area that is 

sufficient to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. North Carolina began 

development of the attainment 

inventory by first generating a baseline 

emissions inventory for the State’s 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. As 

noted above, the year 2010 was chosen 

as the base year for developing a 

comprehensive emissions inventory for 

NOX and VOC, for which projected 

emissions could be developed for 2013, 

2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The 

projected summer day emission 

inventories have been estimated using 

projected rates of growth in population, 

traffic, economic activity, and other 

parameters. Naturally occurring, or 

biogenic, emissions are not included in 

the emissions inventory comparison, as 

these emissions are outside the State’s 

span of control. In addition to 

comparing the final year of the plan 

(2025) to the base year (2010) North 

Carolina compared interim years to the 

baseline to demonstrate that these years 

are also expected to show continued 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

The emissions inventory is composed 

of four major types of sources: point, 

area, on-road mobile, and non-road 

mobile. The complete descriptions of 

how the inventories were developed are 

discussed in the Appendix B of the 

March 28, 2013, submittal, which can be 

found in the docket for this action. Point 

source emissions are tabulated from 

data collected by direct on-site 

measurements of emissions or from 

mass balance calculations utilizing 

emission factors from EPA’s AP–42 or 

stack test results. For each projected 

year’s inventory, point sources are 

adjusted by growth factors based on 

Standard Industrial Classification codes 

generated using growth patterns 

obtained from County Business Patterns. 

For the electric generating utility 

sources, the estimated projected future 

year emissions were based on 

information provided by the utility 

company. For the sources that report to 

the USEPA’s Clean Air Markets 

Division, the actual 2010 average 

summer day emissions were used. For 

the other Title V sources, the 2009 data 

was used which was the latest data 

available. For the small sources that 

only report emissions every 5 years, the 

most recently reported data was used 

and assumed to be equivalent to 2009 

emissions since these sources do not 

vary much from year to year. The 2009 

emissions data was grown to 2010 using 

the USEPA’s EGAS model. 

For area sources, emissions are 

estimated by multiplying an emission 

factor by some known indicator of 

collective activity such as production, 

number of employees, or population. 

For each projected year’s inventory, area 

source emissions are changed by 

population growth, projected 

production growth, or estimated 

employment growth. 

The non-road mobile sources 

emissions are calculated using EPA’s 

NONROAD2008a model, with the 

exception of the railroad locomotives 

and aircraft engine. For each projected 

year’s inventory, the emissions are 

estimated using EPA’s NONROAD2008a 

model with activity input such as 

projected landing and takeoff data for 

aircraft and national fuel use from the 

Energy Information Administration for 

locomotives. 

For highway mobile sources, EPA’s 

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES) mobile model is run to 

generate emissions. The MOVES model 

includes the road class vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) as an input file and can 

directly output the estimated emissions. 

For each projected year’s inventory, the 

highway mobile sources emissions are 

calculated by running the MOVES 

mobile model for the future year with 

the projected VMT to generate 

emissions that take into consideration 

expected Federal tailpipe standards, 

fleet turnover, and new fuels. 

The 2010 NOX and VOC emissions for 

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

emissions for other years, were 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance and are summarized in Tables 

2 through 4 of the following subsection 

discussing the maintenance 

demonstration. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45162 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

10While there is a monitor in York County that 

the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) operates, this 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The March 28, 2013, submittal 

updates the maintenance plan included 

in the November 2, 2011, maintenance 

plan for the North Carolina portion of 

the Area. The maintenance plan: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of NOX and VOC 

remain at or below 2010 emissions 

levels. 

(ii) Uses 2010 as the attainment year 

and includes future emissions inventory 

projections for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, 

and 2025. 

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

years (and beyond) after the time 

necessary for EPA to review and 

approve the maintenance plan. Per 40 

CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEBs 

were established for the last year (2025) 

of the maintenance plan (see section VI 

below). Additionally, NC DAQ opted to 

establish MVEBs for an interim year 

(2013). 

(iv) Provides actual and projected 

emissions inventories, in tons per day 

(tpd), for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area, as shown in 

Tables 2 through 4 below. 

TABLE 2—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE

NORTH CAROLINA PORTION * OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

Point ................................................................................. 37.97 20.03 19.29 20.28 19.19 20.02 

Area .................................................................................. 8.16 8.24 8.31 8.42 8.49 8.67 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 41.31 35.90 30.64 26.89 24.50 23.09 

Mobile ............................................................................... 138.26 106.92 86.43 70.49 63.67 55.90 

Total ** ....................................................................... 225.47 170.90 144.53 125.98 115.76 107.61 

* Iredell County emissions for nonattainment area only. 

**Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county emissions values rather than the total 

sector emissions values. 

TABLE 3—ACTUAL AND PROJECTED ANNUAL VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE

NORTH CAROLINA PORTION * OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Sector 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

Point ................................................................................. 14.78 15.78 17 .04 18.32 19 .5 20.87 

Area .................................................................................. 57.67 56.61 56 .36 57.78 59 .06 63.26 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 26.47 21.92 19 .4 18.79 18 .86 19.26 

Mobile ............................................................................... 66.70 51.32 41 .58 34.47 30 .21 28.67 

Total ** ....................................................................... 165.44 145.48 134 .26 129.26 127 .63 132.06 

* Iredell County emissions for nonattainment area only. 

**Total taken directly from the March 28, 2013, submittal, which was calculated using county-by-county emissions values rather than the total 

sector emissions values. 

TABLE 4—EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR

THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF

THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Year VOC (tpd) NOX (tpd) 

2010 ...................... 165.44 225.47 

2013 ...................... 145.48 170.90 

2016 ...................... 134.26 144.53 

2019 ...................... 129.26 125.98 

2022 ...................... 127.63 115.76 

2025 ...................... 132.06 107.61 

Difference from 

2010 to 2025 ..... ¥33.38 ¥117.86 

Tables 2 through 4 summarize the 

2010 and future projected emissions of 

NOX and VOC from the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In 

situations where local emissions are the 

primary contributor to nonattainment, 

the NAAQS should not be violated in 

the future as long as emissions from 

within the nonattainment area remain at 

or below the baseline with which 

attainment was achieved. North 

Carolina has projected emissions as 

described previously and determined 

that emissions in the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 

will remain below those in the 

attainment year inventory for the 

duration of the maintenance plan. 

As discussed in section VI of this 

proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is 

the difference between the attainment 

level of emissions (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from 

all sources) in the maintenance plan. 

The attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

North Carolina selected 2010 as the 

attainment emissions inventory year for 

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

calculated safety margins in its 

submittal for years 2013, 2016, 2019, 

2022, and 2025. The State has decided 

to allocate a safety margin to the 2013 

and 2025 MVEB for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. For the year 2013, the 

NOX and VOC safety margins were 

calculated as 54.57 tpd and 19.96 tpd, 

respectively. For the year 2025, the NOX

and VOC safety margins were calculated 

as 117.86 tpd and 33.38 tpd, 

respectively. 

The State has decided to allocate a 

portion of the safety margin to the 

MVEBs to allow for unanticipated 

growth in VMT, changes and 

uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, 

etc, that will influence the emission 

estimations. NC DAQ developed and 

implemented a four-step approach for 

determining a factor to use to calculate 

the amount of safety margin to apply to 

the MVEBs. The MVEBs to be used for 

transportation conformity proposes is 

discussed in section VI. This allocation 

and the resulting available safety margin 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area are discussed 

further in section VI of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There are currently seven monitors 

measuring ozone in the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.10


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45163 

monitor is not located within the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

NC DAQ operates four of the monitors 

in the Area, whereas the Mecklenburg 

County Air Quality (MCAQ) Office 

operates three of the monitors in 

Mecklenburg County. The State of North 

Carolina, through NC DAQ, has 

committed to continue operation of the 

monitors in the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

have thus addressed the requirement for 

monitoring. EPA approved North 

Carolina’s 2012 monitoring plan on 

September 21, 2012. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The State of North Carolina, through 

NC DAQ, has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the North Carolina 

portion of the Area 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan. This includes the 

authority to adopt, implement, and 

enforce any subsequent emissions 

control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future ozone attainment problems. 

The large stationary sources are 

required to submit an emissions 

inventory annually to NC DAQ or 

MCAQ. NC DAQ will commit to review 

these emissions inventories to 

determine if any unexpected growth in 

NOX emissions in the Area may 

endanger the maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, as 

new VMT data are provided by the 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NC DOT), NC DAQ 

commits to review these data and 

determine if any unexpected growth in 

VMT may endanger the maintenance of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, under the Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) and 

Air Emissions Reporting Requirements 

(AERR), NC DAQ is required to develop 

a comprehensive, annual, statewide 

emissions inventory every three years 

that is due twelve to eighteen months 

after the completion of the inventory 

year. The CERR and AERR inventory 

years are within a year of the baseline, 

interim, and final years of the 

maintenance plan. Therefore, NC DAQ 

commits to compare the CERR and 

AERR inventories as they are developed 

with the maintenance plan to determine 

if additional steps are necessary for 

continued maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in this Area. 

f. Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan 

The contingency measures are 

designed to promptly correct a violation 

of the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation, and a time limit for 

action by the state. A state should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. The 

maintenance plan must include a 

requirement that a state will implement 

all measures with respect to control of 

the pollutant that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the area to 

attainment in accordance with section 

175A(d). 

In the November 2, 2011, and March 

28, 2013, submittals, North Carolina 

affirms that all programs instituted by 

the State and EPA will remain 

enforceable and that sources are 

prohibited from reducing emissions 

controls following the redesignation of 

the Area. The contingency plan 

included in the submittal includes a 

triggering mechanism to determine 

when contingency measures are needed 

and a process of developing and 

implementing appropriate control 

measures. The primary trigger of the 

contingency plan will be a violation of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., 

when the three-year average of the 4th 

highest values is equal to or greater than 

0.085 ppm at a monitor in the Area). 

The trigger date will be 60 days from the 

date that the State observes a 4th highest 

value that, when averaged with the two 

previous ozone seasons’ fourth highest 

values, would result in a three-year 

average equal to or greater than 0.085 

ppm. 

The secondary trigger will apply 

where no actual violation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS has occurred, but 

where the State finds monitored ozone 

levels indicating that an actual ozone 

NAAQS violation may be imminent. A 

pattern will be deemed to exist when 

there are two consecutive ozone seasons 

in which the 4th highest values are 

0.085 ppm or greater at a single monitor 

within the Area. The trigger date will be 

60 days from the date that the State 

observes a 4th highest value of 0.085 

ppm or greater at a monitor for which 

the previous season had a 4th highest 

value of 0.085 ppm or greater. 

Once the primary or secondary trigger 

is activated, the Planning Section of the 

NC DAQ, in consultation with SC DHEC 

and MCAQ, shall commence analyses 

including trajectory analyses of high 

ozone days and an emissions inventory 

assessment to determine those emission 

control measures that will be required 

for attaining or maintaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. By May 1 of the 

year following the ozone season in 

which the primary or secondary trigger 

has been activated, North Carolina will 

complete sufficient analyses to begin 

adoption of necessary rules for ensuring 

attainment and maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rules would 

become State effective by the following 

January 1, unless legislative review is 

required. 

At least one of the following 

contingency measures will be adopted 

and implemented upon a primary 

triggering event: 

• NOX RACT on stationary sources 

with a potential to emit less than 100 

tons per year in the North Carolina 

portion of the Metrolina nonattainment 

area; 

• diesel inspection and maintenance 

program; 

• implementation of diesel retrofit 

programs, including incentives for 

performing retrofits; 

• additional controls in upwind 

areas. 

The NC DAQ commits to implement 

within 24 months of a primary or 

secondary trigger, or as expeditiously as 

practicable, at least one of the control 

measures listed above or other 

contingency measures that may be 

determined to be more appropriate 

based on the analyses performed. 

Similarly, the tertiary trigger will not 

be an actual violation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This trigger will be a 

first alert as to a potential air quality 

problem on the horizon. The trigger will 

be activated when a monitor in the Area 

has a 4th highest value of 0.085 ppm or 

greater, starting the first year after the 

maintenance plan has been approved. 

The trigger date will be 60 days from the 

date that the State observes a 4th highest 

value of 0.085 ppm or greater at any 

monitor. 

Once the tertiary trigger is activated, 

the Planning Section of the NC DAQ, in 

consultation with the SC DHEC and 

MCAQ, shall commence analyses 

including meteorological evaluation, 

trajectory analyses of high ozone days, 

and emissions inventory assessment to 

understand why a 4th highest 

exceedance of the standard has 

occurred. Once the analyses are 

completed, the NC DAQ will work with 

SC DHEC, MCAQ and the local air 

awareness program to develop an 

outreach plan identifying any additional 

voluntary measures that can be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45164 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11The conversion to kilograms used the actual 

emissions reported in the MOVES model. The 

conversion was done utilizing the ‘‘CONVERT’’ 

function in an EXCEL spreadsheet. 

implemented. If the 4th highest 

exceedance occurs early in the season, 

the NC DAQ will work with entities 

identified in the outreach plan to 

determine if the measures can be 

implemented during the current season; 

otherwise, NC DAQ will work with SC 

DHEC, MCAQ, and the local air 

awareness coordinator to implement the 

plan for the following ozone season. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and a contingency plan. Therefore, the 

maintenance plan SIP revision 

submitted by North Carolina for the 

State’s portion of the Area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA and is approvable. 

VI. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s proposed NOX and VOC 

subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEB is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions in the 

maintenance demonstration that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. 

The MVEB serves as a ceiling on 

emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEB. 

As part of the consultation process on 

setting MVEBs, the NC DAQ discussed 

several options for setting the 

geographic extent of the MVEBs with 

the transportation partners. NC DAQ 

requested feedback on these options or 

other alternatives for consideration from 

the transportation partners. NC DAQ 

received feedback from only two of the 

transportation partners. As part of the 

public comment process, the NC DAQ 

provided several options for 

establishing the MVEBs. 

After considering the comments 

received, the NC DAQ chose to establish 

subarea MVEBs based on geographical 

areas that correspond to the 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) and/or Rural Planning 

Organization (RPO) boundaries. This 

option is consistent with the CabarrusRowan MPO (CRMPO) request and takes 

into consideration two of the comments 

from Mecklenburg-Union MPO 

(MUMPO). NC DAQ believes that this 

option is a good compromise between 

how MVEBs have been established in 

the past, addressing NC DAQ’s concern 

with Mecklenburg County’s on-road 

mobile source emissions and the 

preferences of the transportation 

partners. Further, NC DAQ believes this 

approach provides additional flexibility 

to the transportation partners while 

providing adequate assurance that the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 

maintained in the Metrolina 

nonattainment area. Accordingly, NC 

DAQ established MVEBs for the CRMPO 

(Cabarrus and Rowan Counties), for the 

Gaston Urban Area MPO and Lake 

Norman RPO (Gaston, Iredell, and 

Lincoln Counties), and for the MUMPO 

and Rocky River RPO (Mecklenburg and 

Union Counties) geographical areas. 

Tables 5 through 7 below provide the 

subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs in 

kilograms per day (kg/day),11 for 2013 

and 2025. 

TABLE 5—CABARRUS-ROWAN MPO 

MVEB 

[kg/day] 

2013 2025 

NOX Emissions: 

On-Road Mobile Emissions .......................... 19,838 9,961 

Safety Margin Allocated 

to MVEB .................... 1,984 1,992 

NOX Conformity MVEB 21,822 11,953 

VOC Emissions: 

On-Road Mobile Emissions .......................... 9,863 5,425 

Safety Margin Allocated 

to MVEB .................... 986 1,085 

VOC Conformity MVEB 10,849 6,510 

TABLE 6—GASTON URBAN AREA

MPO/LAKE NORMAN RPO MVEB 

[kg/day] 

2013 2025 

NOX Emissions: 

On-Road Mobile Emissions .......................... 19,957 10,360 

Safety Margin Allocated 

to MVEB .................... 2,211 2,181 

NOX Conformity MVEB 22,168 12,541 

VOC Emissions: 

On-Road Mobile Emissions .......................... 10,442 5,815 

Safety Margin Allocated 

to MVEB .................... 1,168 1,232 

VOC Conformity MVEB 11,610 7,047 

TABLE 7—MECKLENBURG-UNION

MPO/ROCKY RIVER RPO MVEB 

[kg/day] 

2013 2025 

NOX Emissions: 

On-Road Mobile Emissions .......................... 57,198 30,391 

Safety Margin Allocated 

to MVEB .................... 4,303 5,337 

NOX Conformity MVEB 61,501 35,728 

VOC Emissions: 

On-Road Mobile Emissions .......................... 26,250 14,769 

Safety Margin Allocated 

to MVEB .................... 2,002 2,609 

VOC Conformity MVEB 28,252 17,378 

As mentioned above, the North 

Carolina portion of the Area has chosen 

to allocate a portion of the available 

safety margin to the NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 (45.20 tpd 

and 107.38 tpd of the NOX 2013 and 

2025 safety margins remain, 

respectively, and 19.96 tpd and 27.95 

tpd of the VOC 2013 and 2025 safety 

margins remain, respectively). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45165 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the subarea 

MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2013 and 

2025 for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA 

has determined that the Area maintains 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the 

emissions at the levels of the budgets. 

Once the subarea MVEBs for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area are approved or found 

adequate (whichever is completed first), 

they must be used for future conformity 

determinations. After thorough review, 

EPA has determined that the budgets 

meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined 

in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and is proposing 

to approve the budgets because they are 

consistent with maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2025. 

VII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

proposed NOX and VOC Subarea 

MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte area? 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA may 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB 

is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, that MVEB must 

be used by state and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process 

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: Public notification of 

a SIP submission, a public comment 

period, and EPA’s adequacy 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments: 

Response to Court Decision and 

Additional Rule Changes,’’ 68 FR 38974, 

38984 (June 30, 2003). 

As discussed earlier, North Carolina’s 

March 28, 2013, maintenance plan 

submission includes NOX and VOC 

subarea MVEBs for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

2013, an interim year of the 

maintenance plan, and 2025, the last 

year of the maintenance plan. EPA is 

reviewing the NOX and VOC subarea 

MVEBs through the adequacy process. 

The North Carolina SIP submission, 

including the bi-state Charlotte Area 

NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs, opened 

for public comment on EPA’s adequacy 

Web site on February 21, 2013, found at: 

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

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy for the MVEBs for 2013 and 

2025 for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area closed on 

March 25, 2013. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

2013 and 2025 subarea MVEBs for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area for transportation 

conformity purposes in the near future 

by completing the adequacy process that 

was started on February 21, 2013. After 

EPA finds the 2013 and 2025 MVEBs 

adequate or approves them, the new 

subarea MVEBs for NOX and VOC must 

be used for future transportation 

conformity determinations. For required 

regional emissions analysis years that 

involve 2013 through 2024, the 

applicable 2013 MVEBs will be used 

and for 2025 and beyond, the applicable 

budgets will be the new 2025 MVEBs 

established in the maintenance plan, as 

defined in section VI of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

VIII. Proposed Action on the 

Redesignation Request And 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revision 

Including Proposed Approval of the 

2013 and 2025 NOX and VOC Subarea 

MVEBs for the North Carolina Portion 

of the Area 

As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

base year emissions inventory. EPA 

approved the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area (as 

submitted in North Carolina’s November 

12, 2009, 1997 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration SIP revision) on May 4, 

2012. See 77 FR 26441. Emissions 

contained in the submittal cover the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and non-road mobile sources. 

All emission summaries were 

accompanied by source-specific 

descriptions of emission calculation 

procedures and sources of input data. 

North Carolina’s submittal documents 

2002 emissions in the North Carolina 

portion of the Area in units of tons per 

summer day. Table 6, below, provides a 

summary of the 2002 emissions of NOX

and VOC for the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

TABLE 6—NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA 2002 EMISSIONS FOR NOX AND VOC 

[Tons per summer day] 

County 

Point Area Non-road Mobile 

NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Cabarrus .......................................................................................... 2 .6 2 .2 0 .8 6 .0 5 .4 2 .7 17 .2 21 .5 

Gaston .............................................................................................. 34 .8 2 .5 1 .3 8 .9 4 .9 2 .9 20 .0 13 .5 

Iredell (partial) * ................................................................................ 8 .5 0 .9 0 .3 1 .9 1 .4 0 .9 5 .6 5 .1 

Lincoln .............................................................................................. 0 .3 2 .1 0 .5 3 .1 1 .9 1 .3 6 .1 7 .1 

Mecklenburg ..................................................................................... 2 .1 5 .7 7 .0 29 .4 32 .1 24 .1 78 .7 68 .0 

Rowan .............................................................................................. 11 .0 6 .3 0 .8 5 .6 4 .1 2 .3 19 .7 14 .8 

Union ................................................................................................ 0 .2 1 .0 1 .0 6 .4 7 .7 4 .7 11 .3 13 .0 

*Only part of Iredell County is in the nonattainment area. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45166 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

IX. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of North 

Carolina’s redesignation request would 

change the legal designation of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union 

Counties in their entireties, and a 

portion of Iredell County (Davidson and 

Coddle Creek Townships) in North 

Carolina, as found at 40 CFR part 81, 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Approval of North Carolina’s request 

would also incorporate a plan for 

maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area through 2025 

into the SIP. This maintenance plan 

includes contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures 

for evaluation of potential violations. 

The maintenance plan also establishes 

NOX and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 

and 2025 for the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The 

subarea MVEBs are listed in Tables 5 

through 7 in Section VI. Additionally, 

EPA is notifying the public of the status 

of EPA’s adequacy determination for the 

newly-established NOX and VOC 

subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. 

X. Proposed Actions on the 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions 

Including Approval of the NOX and 

VOC Subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 

for the North Carolina Portion of the 

Bi-State Charlotte Area 

EPA previously determined that the 

entire bi-state Charlotte Area was 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

on November 15, 2011, at 76 FR 70656. 

EPA is now taking two separate but 

related actions regarding the 

redesignation and maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. Today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking is in response to 

North Carolina’s November 2, 2011, SIP 

revision (as supplemented by a March 

28, 2013, SIP revision). 

EPA is proposing to determine, based 

on complete, quality-assured, and 

certified monitoring data for the 2008– 

2010 monitoring period that the entire 

bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, 

based on NC DAQ’s November 2, 2011, 

SIP revision (as supplemented by a 

March 28, 2012, SIP revision), EPA is 

proposing to determine that the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area has met the criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is proposing to approve 

North Carolina’s redesignation request 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the North Carolina 

portion of the Area, including the NOX

and VOC subarea MVEBs for 2013 and 

2025, into the North Carolina SIP (under 

CAA section 175A). The maintenance 

plan demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and that the budgets 

meet all of the adequacy criteria 

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

(5). Further, as part of today’s action, 

EPA is describing the status of its 

adequacy determination for the NOX

and VOC MVEBs for 2013 and 2025 in 

accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). 

Within 24 months from the effective 

date of EPA’s adequacy determination 

for the MVEBs or the effective date for 

the final rule for this action, whichever 

is earlier, the transportation partners 

will need to demonstrate conformity to 

the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant 

to 40 CFR 93.104(e). 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of Cabarrus, Gaston, 

Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan 

and Union Counties in their entireties, 

and a portion of Iredell County 

(Davidson and Coddle Creek 

Townships) in North Carolina, as found 

at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment 

to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

this reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

action[s]’’ subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45167 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17834 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184; FRL–9384–4] 

RIN 2070–AJ22 

Notification of Submission to the 

Secretary of Agriculture; Pesticides, 

Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notification of submission to 

the Secretary of Agriculture. 

SUMMARY: This document notifies the 

public as required by the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator 

has forwarded to the Secretary of the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) a draft regulatory document 

concerning Pesticides; Agricultural 

Worker Protection Standard Revisions. 

The draft regulatory document is not 

available to the public until after it has 

been signed and made available by EPA. 

DATES: See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0184, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov, 

or, at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Docket (OPP Docket) in the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanne Kasai, Field and External Affairs 

Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–3240; email address: 

kasai.jeanne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

Section 25(a)(2)(A) of FIFRA requires 

the EPA Administrator to provide the 

Secretary of USDA with a copy of any 

draft proposed rule at least 60 days 

before signing it in proposed form for 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

draft proposed rule is not available to 

the public until after it has been signed 

by EPA. If the Secretary of USDA 

comments in writing regarding the draft 

proposed rule within 30 days after 

receiving it, the EPA Administrator 

shall include the comments of the 

Secretary of USDA and the EPA 

Administrator’s response to those 

comments with the proposed rule that 

publishes in the Federal Register. If the 

Secretary of USDA does not comment in 

writing within 30 days after receiving 

the draft proposed rule, the EPA 

Administrator may sign the proposed 

rule for publication in the Federal 

Register any time after the 30-day 

period. 

II. Do any statutory and Executive 

Order reviews apply to this 

notification? 

No. This document is merely a 

notification of submission to the 

Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the 

regulatory assessment requirements 

apply to this document. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 

Agricultural worker safety, 

Environmental protection, Farmworker, 

Pesticide and pests, Pesticide safety 

training, Pesticide worker safety, 

Worker protection standard regulations. 

Dated: July 19, 2013. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17927 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9839–5] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Cannon Engineering Corp. 

(CEC), Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Cannon 

Engineering Corp. (CEC), Superfund Site 

(Site) located in Bridgewater, 

Massachusetts, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Massachusetts, through the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than five-year reviews, have been 

completed. However, this deletion does 

not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: golden.derrick@epa.gov or 

brown.rudy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 617–918–0448 or 617–918– 

0031. 

• Mail: Derrick Golden, EPA Region 

1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07–4, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912 or Rudy 

Brown, EPA Region 1—New England, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code 

ORAO1–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

• Hand delivery: Derrick Golden, EPA 

Region 1—New England, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07– 

4, Boston, MA 02109–3912 or Rudy 

Brown, EPA Region 1—New England, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code 

ORAO1–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (M–F, 9–5), and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS