38986 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. Therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

Dated: June 9, 2016. 

Dennis M. Keefe, 

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14107 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0449; FRL–9947–62– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of North 

Carolina through the North Carolina 

Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ) on 

May 31, 2013. North Carolina’s May 31, 

2013, SIP revision (Progress Report) 

addresses requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules that 

require each state to submit periodic 

reports describing progress towards 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

established for regional haze and a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing SIP addressing regional 

haze (regional haze plan). EPA is 

proposing to approve North Carolina’s 

Progress Report on the basis that it 

addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0449 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 and via electronic mail 

at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each 

state was required to submit its first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment to 

EPA no later than December 17, 2007. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(b). North Carolina 

submitted its regional haze plan on that 

date, and like many other states subject 

to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 

relied on CAIR to satisfy best available 

retrofit technology (BART) requirements 

for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric 

generating units (EGUs) in the State. On 

June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of North Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007 regional haze plan 

submission because of deficiencies 

arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR 

to satisfy certain regional haze 

requirements. See 77 FR 33642. In a 

separate action taken on June 27, 2012, 

EPA finalized a limited approval of 

North Carolina’s December 17, 2007, 

regional haze plan submission, as 

meeting some of the applicable regional 

haze requirements as set forth in 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 

in 40 CFR 51.300–51.308. See 77 FR 

38185. On October 31, 2014, the State 

submitted a regional haze plan revision 

to correct the deficiencies identified in 

the June 27, 2012, limited disapproval 

by replacing reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on the State’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act (CSA) as an alternative 

to NOX and SO2 BART for BARTeligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. 

EPA approved that SIP revision on May 

13, 2016, resulting in a full approval of 

North Carolina’s regional haze plan. 

Each state is also required to submit 

a progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

Each state is also required to submit, at 

the same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of its 

existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 

51.308(h). The first progress report is 

due five years after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. 

On May 31, 2013, as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(g), NC DAQ submitted to 

EPA, in the form of a revision to North 

Carolina’s SIP, a report on progress 

made towards the RPGs for Class I areas 

in the State and for Class I areas outside 

the State that are affected by emissions 

from sources within the State. This 

submission also includes a negative 

declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1) that the State’s regional 

haze plan is sufficient in meeting the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

(40 CFR 51.300 et seq.). EPA is 

proposing to approve North Carolina’s 

Progress Report on the basis that it 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h) now that EPA has fully 

approved the State’s regional haze plan. 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determinations 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address, at a minimum, the seven 

elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As 

described in further detail in section III 

below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A 

description of the status of measures in 

the approved regional haze plan; (2) a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; (4) an analysis of changes in 

emissions from sources and activities 

within the state; (5) an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have limited or 

impeded progress in Class I areas 

impacted by the state’s sources, (6) an 

assessment of the sufficiency of the 

approved regional haze plan; and (7) a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38987 

2North Carolina’s progress report discusses the 

status of CAIR, CSAPR, and the CSA as of the date 

of submission. As noted above, North Carolina 

subsequently submitted a SIP revision to replace its 

reliance on CAIR as NOX and SO2 BART for BARTeligible units formerly subject to CAIR with reliance 

on the CSA as a BART Alternative, and EPA 

approved that SIP revision on May 13, 2016. 

3According to the State, in 2011, regulated 

sources under the CSA emitted 73,454 tons per year 

(tpy) of SO2 and 39,284 tpy of NOX, well below the 

CSA’s annual emissions caps for SO2 and NOX. The 

State also notes that the 2018 current emissions 

projection of SO2 from the sources subject to CSA 

is 18,420 tpy, which is approximately 80 percent 

lower than the original 2018 projections used in the 

North Carolina regional haze plan. 

4For additional information, see North Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, regional haze plan at page 24. 

B. Adequacy Determinations of the 

Current Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report, a determination of 

the adequacy of their existing regional 

haze plan and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. As described in 

further detail in section III below, 40 

CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1) 

Submit a negative declaration to EPA 

that no further substantive revision to 

the state’s existing regional haze plan is 

needed; (2) provide notification to EPA 

(and to other state(s) that participated in 

the regional planning process) if the 

state determines that its existing 

regional haze plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze plan is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze plan to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze plan is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s regional haze progress 

report and adequacy determination? 

On May 31, 2013, NC DAQ submitted 

a revision to North Carolina’s regional 

haze plan to address progress made 

towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the 

State and for Class I areas outside the 

State that are affected by emissions from 

sources within North Carolina. This 

submittal also includes a determination 

of the adequacy of the State’s existing 

regional haze plan. North Carolina has 

five Class I areas within its borders: 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

(GSMNP), Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 

Wilderness Area (JOKI), Linville Gorge 

Wilderness Area (LIGO), Shining Rock 

Wilderness Area (SHRO), and 

Swanquarter Wildlife Refuge (SWAN). 

Both the Great Smoky Mountains and 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Areas are 

located in North Carolina and 

Tennessee. In its regional haze plan, the 

State also identified, through an area of 

influence modeling analysis based on 

back trajectories, one Class I area in one 

neighboring state potentially impacted 

by North Carolina sources: James River 

Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. See 

77 FR 11858, 11869 (February 28, 2012). 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

The following sections summarize: (1) 

Each of the seven elements that must be 

addressed by a progress report under 40 

CFR 51.308(g); (2) how North Carolina’s 

Progress Report addressed each element; 

and (3) EPA’s analysis and proposed 

determination as to whether the State 

satisfied each element. 

1. Status of Control Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze plan for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. 

The State evaluated the status of 

measures included in its 2007 regional 

haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its Progress 

Report, North Carolina summarizes the 

status of the emissions reduction 

measures that were included in the final 

iteration of the Visibility Improvement 

State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze 

emissions inventory and RPG modeling 

used by the State in developing its 

regional haze plan. The measures 

include, among other things, applicable 

Federal programs (e.g., mobile source 

rules, Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards), Federal consent 

agreements, and Federal and state 

control strategies for EGUs.2 The State 

also discusses the status of several 

measures that were not included in the 

final VISTAS emissions inventory and 

were not relied upon in the initial 

regional haze plan to meet RPGs. The 

State notes that the emissions 

reductions from these measures will 

help ensure Class I areas impacted by 

North Carolina sources achieve their 

RPGs. In aggregate, as noted in sections 

III.A.2 and III.A.6 of this document, the 

emissions reductions from the identified 

measures are expected to exceed the 

emissions reductions projected in North 

Carolina’s regional haze plan. 

EPA proposes to find that North 

Carolina’s analysis adequately addresses 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for the reasons 

discussed below. The State documents 

the implementation status of measures 

from its regional haze plan in addition 

to describing additional measures not 

originally accounted for in the final 

VISTAS emissions inventory that came 

into effect since the VISTAS analyses 

for the regional haze plan were 

completed. The State’s Progress Report 

also provides detailed information on 

EGU control strategies in its regional 

haze plan and the status of existing and 

future expected controls for North 

Carolina’s EGUs because, in its regional 

haze plan, North Carolina identified SO2

emissions from coal-fired EGUs as the 

key contributor to regional haze in the 

VISTAS region. North Carolina 

discusses the status of the CSA, which 

the State identified as the primary state 

control strategy in its regional haze 

plan, and the resulting emissions 

reductions.3 Under the CSA, power 

plants were required to reduce their 

NOX emissions by 77 percent in 2009 

and their SO2 emissions by 73 percent 

in 2013. The State notes that all of the 

CSA subject units are controlled with a 

scrubber for SO2 control and a selective 

catalytic reduction unit or a selective 

non-catalytic reduction for NOX control, 

or have retired, which will result in 

more SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions than those projected in the 

regional haze plan. 

2. Emissions Reductions and Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved in the state through the 

measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its regional haze plan and Progress 

Report, North Carolina focuses its 

assessment on SO2 emissions from 

EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that 

ammonium sulfate accounted for more 

than 70 percent of the visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS 

states and that SO2 point source 

emissions in 2018 represent more than 

95 percent of the total SO2 emissions in 

the State.4 As discussed in section 

III.A.5, below, North Carolina 

determined that sulfates continue to be 

the largest contributor to regional haze 

for Class I areas in the State. 

In its Progress Report, North Carolina 

presents SO2 emissions data for EGUs in 

the State and notes that North Carolina’s 

EGU sector represents over 50 percent of 

statewide SO2 emissions from stationary 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38988 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5See page 32 of the May 31, 2013, submission. 

6The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze refers to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 

the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year 

with the highest and lowest amount of visibility 

impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year 

period. 40 CFR 51.301. 

7For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’ 

conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). 

8See USEPA (2003) ‘‘Guidance for Tracking 

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,’’ http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_

gd.pdf, pp. 2–8. 

9See pp. 43–49 of the May 31, 2013, submission. 

10See pp. 41–42 of the May 31, 2013, submission. 

sources. SO2 emissions reductions from 

2002 to 2011 for North Carolina EGUs 

(387,373 tpy) are greater than the SO2

emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 

estimated in North Carolina’s regional 

haze plan for these EGUs (367,528 tpy). 

Additionally, the State updated the 

2018 SO2 emissions projections for 

North Carolina EGUs in its regional haze 

plan. These updated 2018 SO2 EGU 

emissions projections are approximately 

80 percent lower than the projected 

2018 SO2 emissions in the regional haze 

plan.5

North Carolina states that coal-fired 

EGUs in North Carolina emitted a total 

of 370,000 tpy of SO2 in 2007, whereas 

in 2011, these same EGUs emitted a 

total of 73,000 tpy of SO2, a reduction 

of 297,000 tpy, due largely to the 

installation and operation of scrubbers. 

The State expects that future SO2

emissions will decline further from 

more natural gas use and the continued 

retirement of older, smaller coal-fired 

EGUs without scrubbers. NOX emissions 

from these EGUs dropped from a total 

of approximately 57,400 tpy in 2007 to 

approximately 39,300 tpy of NOX in 

2011, an 18,100 tpy reduction. 

North Carolina identified the 

retirement of over 100 EGUs at 35 

facilities located in eight nearby states 

that VISTAS modeling indicates 

potentially impact visibility in North 

Carolina’s Class I areas. These units 

emitted more than 550,000 tpy of SO2 in 

2011. The State believes that this is 

another indicator that the Class I areas 

in North Carolina are on track to meet 

their RPGs. North Carolina also 

discussed the SO2 emissions reductions 

that occurred at non-EGU facilities 

identified in its regional haze plan as 

contributing one percent or more to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area. 

EPA proposes to conclude that North 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, 

the State provides estimates, and where 

available, actual emissions reductions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants resulting 

from the measures relied upon in its 

regional haze plan. The State 

appropriately focused on SO2 emissions 

from its EGUs in its Progress Report 

because the State had previously 

identified these emissions as the most 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment at North Carolina’s Class I 

areas and those areas that North 

Carolina sources impact. 

3. Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that 

states with Class I areas provide the 

following information for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: 6 (i) Current visibility 

conditions; (ii) the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions; and (iii) 

the change in visibility impairment over 

the past five years. 

North Carolina provides figures with 

visibility monitoring data that address 

the three requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) for the State’s five Class I 

areas. North Carolina reported current 

conditions as the 2006–2010 five-year 

time period and used the 2000–2004 

baseline period for its Class I areas.7

Table 1, below, shows the current 

visibility conditions and the difference 

between current visibility conditions 

and baseline visibility conditions. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN NORTH CAROLINA

Class I area Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

(2009–2013) Difference 

20% Worst Days 

Great Smoky Mountain National Park ......................................................................................... 30.3 26.6 ¥3.7 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock ................................................................................................................. 30.3 26.6 ¥3.7 

Linville Gorge ............................................................................................................................... 28.6 25.1 ¥3.5 

Shining Rock ................................................................................................................................ 28.5 25.8 ¥2.7 

Swanquarter ................................................................................................................................. 24.7 24.2 ¥0.5 

20% Best Days 

Great Smoky Mountain National Park ......................................................................................... 13.6 12.3 ¥1.3 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock ................................................................................................................. 13.6 12.3 ¥1.3 

Linville Gorge ............................................................................................................................... 11.1 11 ¥0.1 

Shining Rock ................................................................................................................................ 8.2 7.25 ¥0.95 

Swanquarter ................................................................................................................................. 12 12.9 0.9 

All North Carolina Class I areas saw 

an improvement in visibility on the 20 

percent worst days from 2006–2010 and 

between baseline and 2006–2010 

conditions. All North Carolina Class I 

areas except for Swanquarter Wildlife 

Refuge saw an improvement in visibility 

on the 20 percent best days from 2006– 

2010 and between baseline and 2006– 

2010 conditions. 

At Swanquarter, a 0.9 dv increase was 

recorded in the 20 percent best-day 

average between 2006–2010 conditions 

(12.9 dv) and the 2000–2004 baseline 

(12.0 dv). This could be due, in part, to 

the fact that the visibility data for 2008 

at Swanquarter did not meet EPA’s data 

completeness criteria and was therefore 

removed from the 2006–2010 average, 

resulting in a four-year average during 

this review period.8 Regardless, North 

Carolina believes that planned changes 

to operating status and emission 

controls on large sources within the 

Swanquarter area of influence provide 

sufficient evidence that by 2018, the 20 

percent best days will be protected.9

Furthermore, the 20 percent best-day 

average at Swanquarter has continued to 

improve, dropping to 12.2 dv for 2007– 

2011.10 Based on the visibility data 

reported in the Western Regional Air 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38989 

11See http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/

HazePlanning.aspx Web site for dv between 2011– 

2014. 

Partnership Technical Support System, 

the 20 percent best-day five year 

averages have continued to improve 

through 2014 and have dropped below 

the baseline beginning with the 2008– 

2012 average.11

North Carolina’s Progress Report 

includes revised RPGs for the five Class 

I areas within the State. North Carolina’s 

original RPGs were based on the 

VISTAS modeling run available at the 

time of the 2007 SIP revision. In 2008, 

VISTAS provided updated modeling 

results that changed the modeled 

progress for North Carolina’s Class I 

areas. North Carolina seeks to include 

revised RPGs that reflect this modeled 

progress. Table 2 identifies the RPGs for 

North Carolina’s Class I areas in the 

State’s regional haze plan and the 

updated RPGs proposed in its Progress 

Report. 

TABLE 2—UPDATED RPGS FOR NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS 1 AREAS

[Deciviews] 

Class I areas 

RPG 20% 

worst days 

(2007 regional 

haze plan) 

RPG 20% 

worst days 

(2013 progress 

report) 

RPG 20% 

best days 

(2007 regional 

haze plan) 

RPG 20% 

best days 

(2013 progress 

report) 

GSMNP ............................................................................................ 23.7 23.5 12.2 12.1 

JOKI ................................................................................................. 23.7 23.5 12.2 12.1 

LIGO ................................................................................................ 22.0 21.7 9.6 9.5 

SHRO ............................................................................................... 22.1 21.9 6.9 6.9 

SWAN .............................................................................................. 20.4 20.3 11.0 10.9 

EPA proposes to approve the updated 

RPGs for North Carolina’s Class I areas 

because they reflect more recent 

modeling. Also, EPA proposes to 

conclude that North Carolina has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) because the State provides 

the information regarding visibility 

conditions and visibility changes 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

the regulation. The Progress Report 

includes current conditions based on 

the Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitoring data for the years 2006– 

2010, the difference between current 

visibility conditions and baseline 

visibility conditions, and the change in 

visibility impairment over the five-year 

period 2006–2010. 

4. Emissions Tracking 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an 

analysis tracking emission changes of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. 

In its Progress Report, North Carolina 

presents data from statewide actual 

emissions inventories for 2008 and 

projected emissions inventories 

developed for the years 2009 and 2010. 

The State compares these data to the 

baseline emissions inventory for 2002. 

The pollutants inventoried include 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), 

NOX, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and 

SO2. The emissions inventories include 

the following source classifications: 

Point, area, non-road mobile, and onroad mobile sources. 

North Carolina includes the emissions 

inventories from the regional haze plan 

for 2002 and 2009, and summarizes 

emissions data from EPA’s 2008 

National Emissions Inventory. North 

Carolina’s analysis shows that 2008 

emissions are lower than 2002 

emissions. North Carolina estimates onroad mobile source emissions in the 

2008 and 2010 inventories using the 

MOVES2010a model. This model tends 

to estimate higher emissions than its 

previous counterpart, the MOBILE6 

model used by the State to estimate onroad mobile source emissions for the 

2002 and 2009 inventories, especially 

for NOX emissions. North Carolina has 

concluded that MOVES model 

predictions for NOX can be 1.7 to 2.1 

times higher than MOBILE6. Despite the 

change in methodology, a declining 

trend in all pollutants can be seen 

between 2002 and 2008 as seen in Table 

4. 

North Carolina also includes an 

emission inventory for 2010 in its 

Progress Report. The State estimates 

2010 point source emissions by taking 

the emissions reported by sources for 

2010 and adding the latest emissions for 

the small sources that only report 

emissions every five years. This 

procedure differs from the procedure 

used by the State in its regional haze 

plan that included only those sources 

that reported emissions in 2002. In its 

2010 inventory, North Carolina 

estimated that small sources that did not 

report contribute one percent of total 

NOX emissions, seven percent of total 

VOC emissions, one percent of total SO2

emissions, and seven percent of total 

PM2.5 emissions. North Carolina 

estimates area source emissions by 

growing the existing 2007 emissions 

inventory to 2010 and estimates nonroad mobile source emissions using the 

EPA’s NONROAD2008 model for those 

sources covered by the model and 

growing the 2007 airport, locomotive, 

and commercial marine emissions to 

2010. 

North Carolina estimates on-road 

mobile source emissions for 2010 using 

MOVES2010a with the latest vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and speed data. If 

2010 speeds and VMT were not 

available for a particular county, 

interpolated or projected 2010 data was 

used. Using MOVES2010a, the on-road 

mobile emissions are higher than those 

that would be predicted using the older 

model. As seen in Tables 3 and 5, the 

2010 emissions inventory is 

significantly lower than the 2002 

emissions inventory despite including 

additional stationary point sources and 

the use of MOVES, which predicts 

higher NOX emissions than its 

predecessor MOBILE6.2. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38990 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA

[tpy] 

Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5

Point ................................................................................................................. 61,484 196,731 522,093 26,953 

Area ................................................................................................................. 250,044 41,517 5,815 83,520 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 263,766 327,329 12,420 4,623 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 94,480 84,284 7,693 7,348 

Total .......................................................................................................... 669,774 649,861 548,021 122,444 

TABLE 4—ACTUAL 2008 ANNUAL EMISSION SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA

[tpy] 

Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5

Point ................................................................................................................. 39,053 97,879 274,541 27,987 

Area ................................................................................................................. 149,264 43,672 13,937 48,807 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 122,503 253,849 1,190 7,895 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 72,754 52,469 980 4,924 

Total .......................................................................................................... 383,573 447,869 290,648 89,613 

TABLE 5—2010 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA

[tpy] 

Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5

Point ................................................................................................................. 42,504 90,155 151,210 13,966 

Area ................................................................................................................. 83,274 11,353 5,105 23,114 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 101,731 256,381 1,205 8,905 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 66,773 65,353 2,829 5,455 

Total .......................................................................................................... 294,281 423,242 160,350 51,441 

When comparing the 2010 emissions 

(Table 5) with the projected 2009 

emissions (Table 6), the total emissions 

of each pollutant are lower in 2010 with 

the exception of NOX. The slight 

increase in 2010 NOX emissions is likely 

due to the use of MOBILE6 to estimate 

on-road mobile source NOX emissions 

for 2009 and the use of MOVES to 

estimate on-road mobile source NOX

emissions for 2010. As noted above, 

MOVES predicts higher NOX emissions 

than MOBILE6. 

TABLE 6—2009 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA

[tpy] 

Source category VOC NOX SO2 PM2.5

Point ................................................................................................................. 62,161 101,236 284,802 26,360 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 74,056 70,997 1,892 5,760 

Area ................................................................................................................. 200,873 45,382 6,281 90,729 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 168,676 201,609 1,503 3,493 

Total .......................................................................................................... 505,766 419,224 294,478 126,342 

EPA proposes to conclude that North 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(4). North Carolina 

tracked changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from 

2002–2010 for all source categories and 

analyzed trends in emissions from 

2002–2010, the most current qualityassured data available for these units at 

the time of progress report development. 

The 2010 emissions were also compared 

to the projected 2009 emissions, which 

were with the exception of NOX, as 

discussed above. While ideally the fiveyear period to be analyzed for emissions 

inventory changes is the time period 

since the current regional haze plan was 

submitted, there is an inevitable time 

lag in developing and reporting 

complete emissions inventories once 

quality-assured emissions data becomes 

available. Therefore, EPA believes that 

there is some flexibility in the five-year 

time period that states can select. 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. 

In its Progress Report, North Carolina 

documented that sulfates, which are 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38991 

formed from SO2 emissions, continue to 

be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze for Class I areas in the 

State and therefore focused its analysis 

on large SO2 emissions from point 

sources. In addressing the requirements 

at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), North Carolina 

references its analyses that SO2

emissions from point sources show an 

overall downward trend over the period 

2006 to 2010 and examines other 

potential pollutants of concern affecting 

visibility in Class I areas in North 

Carolina. After ammonium sulfate, 

primary organic matter is the next 

largest contributor to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in North 

Carolina. The State demonstrates that 

there are no significant changes in 

emissions of SO2, PM2.5, or NOX that 

have impeded progress in reducing 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by North Carolina 

sources. Furthermore, the Progress 

Report shows that the State is on track 

to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I 

areas in North Carolina. For these 

reasons, EPA proposes to conclude that 

North Carolina’s Progress Report has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5). 

6. Assessment of Current Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze plan is sufficient to enable 

the state, or other states, to meet the 

RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the state. 

The State believes that it is on track 

to meet the 2018 RPGs for the North 

Carolina Class I areas and will not 

impede Class I areas outside of North 

Carolina from meeting their RPGs based 

on the trends in visibility and emissions 

presented in its Progress Report. In its 

Progress Report, North Carolina 

provided reconstructed light extinction 

figures for the 20 percent worst days for 

all Class I areas in the Southeast for 

2006 through 2010. The 20 percent 

worst days extinction clearly 

demonstrates that sulfates continue to 

be the major concern, with EGUs being 

the largest contributor. As identified in 

Table 3–1 of the Progress Report, the 

State estimates that SO2 emissions from 

EGUs in North Carolina have decreased 

by approximately 387,400 tons per year 

from 2002 to 2011 and expects that 

these emissions will continue to 

decrease through the first regional haze 

planning period. 

The only coal-fired EGU in North 

Carolina which is in the area of 

influence (as defined by North 

Carolina’s methodology) of the James 

River Face Class I area in Virginia was 

retired in April 2012. The SO2 emission 

reductions resulting from this 

retirement are expected to contribute to 

achieving the RPGs for the James River 

Face Class I area. 

EPA proposes to conclude that North 

Carolina has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information, including 

expected emissions reductions 

associated with measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. In its assessment, the 

State references the improving visibility 

trends and the downward emissions 

trends in the State, with a focus on SO2

emissions from North Carolina EGUs. 

These trends support the State’s 

determination that the State’s regional 

haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for 

Class I areas within and outside the 

State impacted by North Carolina 

sources. 

7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review 

of the state’s visibility monitoring 

strategy and an assessment of whether 

any modifications to the monitoring 

strategy are necessary. 

In its Progress Report, North Carolina 

summarizes the existing monitoring 

network in North Carolina and in 

Tennessee to monitor visibility in North 

Carolina’s Class I areas in North 

Carolina and concludes that no 

modifications to the existing visibility 

monitoring strategy are necessary. The 

primary monitoring network for regional 

haze, both nationwide and in North 

Carolina, is the IMPROVE network. 

There are currently three IMPROVE 

sites in North Carolina (LIGO, SHRO, 

and SWAN). In addition, an IMPROVE 

site just across the border in Tennessee 

serves as the monitoring site for both the 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 

Area, both of which lie partly in 

Tennessee and partly in North Carolina. 

The State also explains the 

importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 

network for tracking visibility trends at 

Class I areas in North Carolina. North 

Carolina states that data produced by 

the IMPROVE monitoring network will 

be used nearly continuously for 

preparing the 5-year progress reports 

and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of 

which relies on analysis of the 

preceding five years of data, and thus, 

the monitoring data from the IMPROVE 

sites needs to be readily accessible and 

to be kept up to date. The VIEWS Web 

site has been maintained by VISTAS 

and the other Regional Planning 

Organizations to provide ready access to 

the IMPROVE data and data analysis 

tools. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, some ongoing long-term 

limited monitoring supported by 

Federal Land Managers provides 

additional insight into progress toward 

regional haze goals. North Carolina 

benefits from the data from these 

measurements, but is not responsible for 

associated funding decisions to 

maintain these measurements into the 

future. 

A continuous nitrate monitor operates 

at the Millbrook site in Raleigh and a 

second continuous nitrate monitor 

operates at the Rockwell monitoring site 

in Rowan County. The State plans to 

operate these monitors as long as 

funding and supplies allow. North 

Carolina began operating a continuous 

sulfate monitor at the Millbrook in 

August 2007 and is currently operating 

aethalometers at the Millbrook and 

Rockwell sites. 

In addition, the NC DAQ and the local 

air agencies in the State operate a 

comprehensive PM2.5 network of the 

filter based Federal reference method 

monitors, continuous mass monitors, 

filter-based speciated monitors, and 

continuous speciated monitors. These 

PM2.5 measurements help the NC DAQ 

characterize air pollution levels in areas 

across the State, and therefore aid in the 

analysis of visibility improvement in 

and near the Class I areas in North 

Carolina. 

EPA proposes to conclude that North 

Carolina has adequately addressed the 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The 

State reaffirmed its continued reliance 

upon the IMPROVE monitoring 

network; assessed its entire visibility 

monitoring network, including 

additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5

monitors, used to further understand 

visibility trends in the State; and 

determined that no changes to its 

monitoring strategy are necessary. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report. The following section 

summarizes: (1) The action taken by 

North Carolina under 40 CFR 51.308(h); 

(2) North Carolina’s rationale for the 

selected action; and (3) EPA’s analysis 

and proposed determination regarding 

the State’s action. 

In its Progress Report, North Carolina 

took the action provided for by 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA if 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38992 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the state determines that the existing 

regional haze plan requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s negative declaration is the 

findings from the Progress Report, 

including the findings that: Visibility 

has improved at Class I areas (with the 

exception of the best-days visibility at 

SWAN as discussed above) in North 

Carolina; SO2 emissions from the State’s 

sources have decreased beyond the 2018 

projections in the regional haze plan; 

additional EGU control measures not 

relied upon in the State’s regional haze 

plan have occurred or will occur in the 

implementation period; and the EGU 

SO2 emissions in North Carolina are 

already below the levels projected for 

2018 in the regional haze plan and are 

expected to continue to trend 

downward. EPA proposes to conclude 

that North Carolina has adequately 

addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the 

visibility trends at the Class I areas 

impacted by the State’s sources and the 

emissions trends of the State’s largest 

emitters of visibility-impairing 

pollutants indicate that the RPGs for 

Class I areas impacted by source in 

North Carolina will be met. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report, SIP revision, submitted by the 

State on May 31, 2013, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). 

EPA also proposes to approve the 

updated RPGs for North Carolina’s Class 

I areas. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 1, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14036 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0603; FRL–9947–67– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Philadelphia County 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Under the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These 

revisions pertain to a demonstration that 

Philadelphia County (Philadelphia) 

meets the requirements for reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) as ozone precursors 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

proposing to approve three separate SIP 

revisions addressing RACT under the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

Philadelphia, including new or revised 

source-specific RACT determinations 

for fifteen major sources of NOX and/or 

VOC and certifications that certain 

previous source-specific RACT 

determinations for major sources of NOX

and/or VOC continue to adequately 

represent RACT under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposes to 

convert the prior conditional approval 

of the Philadelphia RACT 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to full approval, as 

Pennsylvania has met the obligations 

associated with the conditional 

approval. EPA therefore proposes to 

find that Pennsylvania has met all 

applicable RACT requirements under 

the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for Philadelphia. This action is 

being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2008–0603 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS