ROY COOPER 

Attorney General 

Regina McCarthy 

State of North Carolina 

Department of Justi ce 

PO nox 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

27602 

December 23, 2013 

Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

\Villiam Jefferson Clinton Federal Building 

1200 Pennsylvania A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Petition for Reconsideration and Amended Rulcrnaking 

Dear !'vis. i\'fcCarthy: 

C!_.: : ~ 

pajones@ncdoj. gov 

Phone: (919) 716-6600 

Fax: (919) 716-676/ 

( _ ..... ..... , ..... t_.l 

( ~ .. . ... : ' . . 

;.:-= ~ ·.-... :: -~ 

Enclosed please l'lnd :1 Petition f(H· H.econsideration and Amended Rulemak in g. 

Enclosures 

cc via Certified Mail: 

via Certified Mail: 

Si nccrely, 

~ /1 A-1 . _.. '~ /~ Pamela A. Jon<:s 

North Carolina State 13ar Ccrtiticd Paralegal 

Correspondence Control Uni t, Oftice of General Counsel, U.S. EPA 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. , Attorney General of the United States 

·i 
BEFORE Tl JE UNITED STATT~S 

.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

fn re: 

Prevention nf Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for ParticuiaLe 

Maller Less Than 2.5 .lvlierometers 

(PTv1 25 ) ." 75 Fed. Reg. 64,864 (Oct. 

20.1010} 

) 

. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

EPA Docket No. 

EPA-I JQ-OA R .. 2Q06-0605 

1 ..... --· .................. -.. -... .. "·----·-· ..... --.. --· . ____ .... .. .. _ 

PETITiON fO'R RgCONSJDERATION 

AND A.~1ENDED RlJLEM.AKlNG 

Lhen J<~ Menard 

Scott Conl<.l in 

North Cm·()linn Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 

f< ~=tldg h, NC 27602 

Phone Number: (9 19) 716-6600 

FHx Number: (9 19) 16~ 6767 

Counsd fo r he State of North Carolina 

Uated: December 23, 20 l J 
Pursuant (O St:ction 307(d)(7)(B) ofthe Clean Air /\cl ("CAA''), 42 U.S.C. § 

?607(d)(7)(B} (20 13 ), the State of' North Cu·olina (''State"'' or "Petitioner") 

respectfully petitions t.he United States Environmental Prot ection Agency ("EPA") 

to gr:mr ec on~;iderati on of the major source baseline date incl uded in the nile 

en titled "Prevention o f Sig11iikant Deterioration (PSD) for ·ti cu latc ivlatter Less 

Than 2.5 l\-1i cromders (PMn).' ' 75 h.~d. RL"~g. 64~864 (()ct. 20. 20 1 0) (" lncrernent 

l<u!c"). The grounds f'or the objection detailed in this Petition arose after the 

lnuemcnt Rule public comment period ended, and the "objection is of central 

r~ kv~tncc to the oulcoJ.ne of the le-, '~ v.;arranting reconsideration. 42 U.S.C. § 

7607(d)( 7)(BJ. 1 In addition, pursuant to the CAA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 7400 er seq. and the 

;\ P/\, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., Petitioner hereby petil:ions EPA to unclcrt<-1ke a 

n:lemaking procedure to am~n d the Incre-ment Hule with r·egnrd to the major 

snurc<.~ baseline date. 

BACKGROUND 

In 2006, EPA revised the national ambient. air quality standard ("NAAQS") 

for pnrticulatc- matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ("PM:.s''). 

National Ambient. Air Quality Standards for Particulate MaUer, 71 Fed. Reg. 

~) i, 144 (Oct 17; 2006). In 2007 and 2008, EPA issued two P.tvl:t 5 in·\plementation 

rules. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 20,586 (Apr. 25, 

1 \\'hill-. it !s undl):lr whc!lwr or not lhi.s Pel it ion is .'et~S~<Il"Y undt~ r Sn:lion :l07(d)(7j(l l). S<'e Am. Rd ~: 'li'amp. 

illii/.l,!r.l· .·b·s 'n l'. FPA, 588 V .. ~d 1109, 111<1 (D.C. Cir. ~:009), Petil ioJKr submits this li (lll in the cwnt that it is 

<it-tcnn inc.d I~) bt· n;:(:l~$ ary. 

2 
2007 ): frnplcrncntation oCthe New Source l~cvil \V (NSR) Program fo r Particulate 

Mall'e:r Less Than 2.5 Micrometers Pl\11 ~ 73 h:d. Reg. 28,32 1 (l'vf<1Y I 6: 2008). 

In 2008, these rules were challenged by Natural .Resources Defense Council 

(''NR D('.''') <lnd the Skn·a Club in the United Sta t.~s Couri of /\pp('.als for the 

Di-;rrit:f of Columbia Circuit, <Jnd u decision was issued on January 4, 20 !3. · 

\' //'') J'' !' ('' 'I I"'J>A 70' (' .. , ") j I ')') (l') ('' (''' ')() I '') J \lj ,. (' ; 'otJII'a \(~s. ..>e ensc .. owu.'J . v. --:. , ) J· .. )< lt_X . . ·" ... .Jr. ,.:. .) . n 1 ?. ) . ~ 

the cour1 held i~ hat ''Piv!IC( as th t term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 7602 expressly 

includes M,~- 706 F.3cl at 436. The court f(.wnd that HPA had erred bv .... ., 

<Hk!n:ssing Pivl:1 5 solely under the general nonattainmeut provisions of Subpart 

when pronrulgating its 2007 and 2008 implementation rules, ru ther than under 

Subp:ll't 4 's provisions spccif1cally addressing PM 10. ld. at 4.37. The court found 

rhat Subpart 4limited PA~ s discretion, and that these nondiscretionary 

rc·quiremenb could not be ignored. !d. at 436. 'The court remanded the 2007 and 

:!008 rules to .EPA for n:~-p ga ti n under Subpart 4 in keeping with the coun's 

decision. !d. nt 4-37. 

During t.be course of the NRDC litigation, EPA issued the Tncrement Huk in 

20 I 0. 75 Fed. 'Reg. 64,864. In the preamble t.o the proposed ncr~men t Ru le in 

2007. EPA posited that it had two options \Vhen setting the b·asel.ine dates:

2 1) treat 

Pl\·1:.:5 as a nevv pollutant under Section l66(a), r·e.sulting in a new baseline dme 

: P-::~dirw dates bdn1; set by EP J\ in I he PM:: 5 lnercnwn! R 11 k include the gg ~r datl' and the m~jor sourct: hast! ine 

da• ~· . See 'l:i F~ d. l~ g. <11 6o1.SML . 

,, 

·' 
(''Option l ''),or 2) rcplac~ the annual PM 10 inc.rcrncnts with annual PM25 

ilh.TeJll(!l1l.::; under Sec.lion 166(1) ("OptiOll 2"). Prevention or Significant 

Dekrioration (PSD) for Parti culate Matter l.css Tbnn 2.5 .tvli.cmmeters (PM2.

5), 72 

Fed. l<c~g . 54,112, S4,114- l5, 54,l:l6<1g (propm;(~d S..:.pt. 2 1, 2007). According l<.' 

LP;\, ''Section !()()(l) docs not address hovv EPA should h.andk baseline dates i'or a 

st,hsiitutt:cl increment." 72 Fed. Reg. at 54,138. Therd()re, under Option 2, L~PA 

proposed to H~t.ain the existing baseline date c)f' 1975 J()r the annual PM~. 5 

increments (bt:t still proposed f.o usc Option 1 f()l· the 24-hour PM:.u increments). 

JJ ln the tina~ Increment Rule, J.:PA chose to use Option J, setting ncv,t baseline 

dates !(w both fhe annual and 24--lwur PM2_5 incremenTs. 75 Fed. Reg. at 64J->68 . 

. In a recent Federal Hegi.stcr notice, EPA stated its position that the baseline 

dare )r major sources in HttainmcnL nne! unclassifinblc areas \Vas not affected by 

the NR DC decision. Promulgation of StHtc Impkmcntntion Plan Rev isions; 

Revision ll) Prevention of Signi fieant Deterioration Program; Tnthtstructurc 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Pfvh5 National Ambient Air Qtwllty 

Standards; Utah, 78 Fed. Reg. 63)883, 63,885 (Oct. 25, 2013). Because EPA 

bl'lit::ved thaL the case did not address the increment or baseline provi~ions in the 

Increment Rule, J:·:PA concluded that the PM2.5 basd int~ dates "remain in e.f(0ct and 

are unchHnged" by !he lVRDC decision. 78 Fed. Reg. at 63,8R5. 

4 
AHGlJMl~NT 

Pursuant to the NRDC decision, PM2 .. 5 is not a new poJlu(anr, nnd EPA 

cnnnot ignore the nondiscn.>:tiOIWry PM 10 provisions when promu lgating PM15 

implementation n.dcs. NRDC, 706 F.3d nt436. Therefore, the opt ion EPA 

believed it had in the 2010 Increment J{uJe ···· the option to ignore the P"l\.1 10 

provisions and tt:cat PM;u as a new pollumnt ····· \Vas legnlly not nvai lnble t:o EPA. 

Th;;:refore, the existing major ~a)urce baseline date t)f 1975 is applicable, rather th:111 

<1 tl w 20 I 0 basd inc date. 

Sectiou 166(a) of the CAA provides that for 

pollutants for \Vh ich national ambient nir quality standards are 

pronllllgared after the date of the enactment of th is part I: enacted Aug. 

7; 1977], [tbe Administrator] shall promulgate such regulations [to 

prevent: the significant: dete rioration of air quality which would result 

from the emissions of such pollutants] not. more thnn 2 years after the 

dat~ of promulgaLion of such standards. 

42 U.S.C. § 7476(a). Section 166(f) provides tlwt 

'rhe Adrninistrator i.s authorized to substitute, for the maximum 

allowable increases in patiieulntc matter specified in sect ion 163(b) 

and section t 65(d)(2)(C)(iv) f 42 USCS §§ 74 73(b), 

7475(d)(2)(C)(iv)l, maximum al l<)\vable incninses in partictllatc 

matter \Vit.h an aerodynamic diameter sm;;1!ler than or equal to 10 

micrometers. Such substituted maxirnum allowable increases shnll be 

of equal stringency in e!'fixt as those specified in lhe provisions for 

\-vhich they are substituted. 

"") I I ~ (' .~ 7t.17/.(f) ;...,.._ \. d . I ........ ~ ~ 1 0 - . 

5 
in the NRDC decision, the court looked to the deflnition of PM10 in 42 

l.i.S.C. § 7602(!): "[t]he term 'PM- 10' me;;tm: p~tr(icu atc: ma(ter wi th an 

nerodynamic diameter Jess than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers, as 

tnc;ts urcd by :lt1ch method <1:; tbe Administrator may determine." lv'RDC', 706 F.3 d 

HI 136. This definit ion is appliqtble to tile entire CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7602. The 

couri held that PM?..:l· being "particulntc matter (P1vf) having a diameter equal ln or 

~t: :; than 2.) micrometers," 706 F.Jd at 428 (citation omitted). was included in the 

piHin lnngtHtg<~ of the PM 10 definition. !d. at 436. Based on the NRD(' court's 

anaiysis, the language used in Section J 66(f) regarding "pa1·ticulatc matter \-virh an 

aerodynamic diameter sma ller than or equal to 10 micrometers," includes Pivh.~ ns 

8 matter or law. The Administrator's authority to sub~tiiutc a PM;~ 5 incrcmc.nt ft)r 

ihc existing particulate matter increment under Section 166(f) is conditioned on the 

subs!itut.cd increment b~ ng of''equal stringency" as the prior-increment. 42 

'( i.S.C. ~ 74 7(,( f). Applying the holding of the NRDC decision, it v,•ould lx~ 

illogical for Congress to restrict. EPA's discretion in addressing $mailer sizes of 

PM through S.ect ion l66(f) \vhilc allowing EPA to ~~imply bypass that restriction 

by using Section 166(a) r.o treat the smaller size of PM ~1s a new pollutant. S'ec 

:V!UX . .', 706 F.3d at 436. Lkspite thi.s n~striction on EPA 's authority in Sec-tion 

J 66(i'). EPA has used l 66(a) in setting rhe baseline date for PM25 . 

6 
1\.'.titioner submits that the rnaior source baseline:. date in the:: 1ncrcmcnt Ru le 

is of centra l r~lcvance~ to the outcome or the rule'' and that. the grounds for 

Pcrit.inner's objection, i.e., EPA 's refusal to fully comply \Vith the NRDC decision, 

arusc <:lf·k.r the initial con1mci1t period for the rule. The Stat e therefore j.Jel itions 

LP.A to reconsider the tnn_ior source baseline date in the Increment Rule in light or 

the NNDC decision. Petitioner requcsrs that EPA mnend the rule to incorporate th~ 

mH_jor st"l\1!-ce baseiine date of I 975 [n accordance \Vith the D.C. Circ.uit Court's 

\ "J)l··c·· l . . (' ~ 11 S (., >:. ,. - ... () \'!)[" ("' 7(6 1··"" !.128- ;' \ _) . <.eC JSIOD . .JeC) ;,, . . -. ~ ))_) C ; i \ ) . , l · .. )( . (. 

CONCLlJSION 

[P/\ should grant rec:onsideration of the PM2 __ 5 ma_jor source baseli ne date in 

rhe lncrcnH:~ t Rule. EPA should initiate ru lemaking procedures in order lo amend 

tlw lncrerncnt Rule ro correct the baseline date for major sources in accordance 

with the D.C. Circuit Court':) decision in NRDC, 706 F.J d 428. 

7 
.J 

Da.t.:d D<:'Ct:mber j:~:. 20 !J. 

Hespectfully submitted, 

ROY COOPER 

AUorney General 

By t~!..tb.c~ld~:=cd. __ ___ _ 

Brenda Menard 

By : 

Special Deputy Attorney Genera l 

N.C. State Bar No. 35445 

bmenard@)ncdoj .gov 

{;;/~~~ -- ····..t't'::::2.±!:.~- .. L~.-~---· --·~· .......... ··- ··- ·---- ·- ·- Scott Conklin 

Assistant. Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 2S257 

sconklin@ncdoj.gov 

N.C. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 

Phone Number: (919) 71.6-6600 

Fax Number: (919) 716-676 7