Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28797 

1North Carolina’s preconstruction permitting 

program for new and modified stationary sources is 

codified at 15A NCAC Subchapter 02D. 

Specifically, North Carolina’s PSD preconstruction 

regulations are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and 

apply to major stationary sources or modifications 

constructed in areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable/attainment for the NAAQS, as 

required under part C of title I of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). North Carolina’s NNSR regulations 

are found at 15A NCAC 02D .0531 and apply to the 

construction and modification of any major 

stationary source of air pollution in or impacting 

upon a NAAQS nonattainment area, as required by 

Part D of title I of the CAA. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 117.261, add paragraph (mm1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

from St. Marys River to Key Largo. 

* * * * * 

(mm1) West 79th Street Bridge. The 

draw of the West 79th Street Bridge, at 

Miami, Florida will open on signal, 

except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays, the draw need only open on 

the hour and half hour. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 117.304 to read as follows: 

§ 117.304 Miami Beach Channel. 

The draw of the East 79th Street 

bridge, at Miami, Florida will open on 

signal, except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays, the draw need only open on 

the hour and half hour. 

Dated: May 4, 2016. 

S.A. Buschman, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10921 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0501; FRL–9946–14– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Disapproval; 

North Carolina: New Source Review for 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

in part, and disapprove, in part, changes 

to the North Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), provided by 

the North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) 

through the Division of Air Quality, to 

EPA in submittals dated May 16, 2011 

(two separate submittals), and 

September 5, 2013. These SIP submittals 

modify North Carolina’s New Source 

Review (NSR)—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR)—permitting regulations and 

include the adoption of some federal 

requirements regarding implementation 

of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) through the NSR permitting 

program. As a result of the proposed 

disapproval of a portion of the State’s 

NSR requirements, EPA is also 

proposing to approve, in part, and 

disapprove, in part, the PSD elements of 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8- 

hour ozone, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and to convert the 

Agency’s previous conditional 

approvals of the PSD elements of North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS to partial approvals 

and partial disapprovals. This proposed 

partial disapproval, if finalized, will 

trigger the requirements for EPA to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiencies through a 

SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP 

revision before EPA promulgates such a 

FIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 9, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0501 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey of the Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Huey 

can be reached by telephone at (404) 

562–9104 or via electronic mail at 

huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing? 

II. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s May 16, 2011, and September 

5, 2013, SIP submittals addressing NSR 

requirements? 

A. North Carolina’s SIP Submittal Changes 

Regarding the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule 

B. North Carolina’s SIP Submittal Changes 

Regarding the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule 

C. North Carolina’s Miscellaneous SIP 

Submittal Changes Regarding the NSR 

Program 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the PSD 

elements for North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals? 

A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure 

Submittals for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure 

Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing? 

EPA is proposing four actions, some 

with multiple parts, with regard to 

North Carolina’s SIP submittals 

updating the State’s PSD and NNSR 

regulations found at 15A North Carolina 

Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .0530 

and 15A NCAC 02D .0531.1 First, EPA 

is proposing to approve a May 16, 2011, 

SIP submittal from North Carolina (as 

revised and updated by the State’s 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) as 

meeting the requirements of EPA’s rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28798 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(PM2.5);’’ Final Rule, 73 FR 28321 (May 

16, 2008) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule’’). 

Second, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove North Carolina’s September 

5, 2013, SIP submittal with regard to 

changes to the State’s regulation at 15A 

NCAC 02D .0530 because North 

Carolina’s changes do not fully meet the 

requirements of EPA’s rulemaking, 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC),’’ Final Rule, 75 FR 64864 

(October 20, 2010) (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule’’). 

Third, EPA is proposing to approve 

administrative changes to North 

Carolina’s PSD and NNSR regulations at 

15A NCAC 02D .0530 and 15A NCAC 

02D .0531 provided by the State in a SIP 

submittal also dated May 16, 2011, 

including clarification of the 

applicability of best available control 

technology (BACT) and lowest 

achievable emission rate (LAER) for 

electrical generating units (EGUs) in the 

State, and the inclusion of an additional 

Federal Land Manager (FLM) 

notification provision. 

Lastly, as a result of the proposed 

disapproval of a portion of the State’s 

NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to 

approve, in part, and disapprove, in 

part, the PSD elements of the North 

Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

for the 2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 

2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS and to convert the Agency’s 

previous conditional approvals of the 

PSD elements of the North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to partial approvals and 

partial disapprovals. 

II. Fine Particulate Matter and the 

NAAQS 

‘‘Particulate matter,’’ also known as 

particle pollution or PM, is a complex 

mixture of extremely small particles and 

liquid droplets. Particle pollution is 

made up of a number of components, 

including acids (such as nitrates and 

sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and 

soil or dust particles. The size of 

particles is directly linked to their 

potential for causing health problems. 

EPA is concerned about particles that 

are 10 micrometers in diameter or 

smaller because those are the particles 

that generally pass through the throat 

and nose and enter the lungs. Once 

inhaled, these particles can affect the 

heart and lungs and cause serious health 

effects. EPA groups particle pollution 

into two categories: 

• ‘‘Inhalable coarse particles,’’ or 

PM10, are particles larger than 2.5 

micrometers but smaller than 10 

micrometers in diameter. Inhalable 

coarse particles can be directly emitted 

from sources such as roadways and 

industries that create dusty emissions. 

• ‘‘Fine particles,’’ or PM2.5, are solid 

or liquid particles that are 2.5 

micrometers in diameter and smaller. 

Fine particles can be directly emitted 

from sources such as industrial 

processes, diesel and gasoline engines, 

and wildfires, or they can be formed in 

the atmosphere secondarily as a result 

of chemical reactions between specific 

pollutants (known as PM2.5 precursors) 

that are emitted primarily from mobile 

and stationary combustion sources. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

requires EPA to set air quality standards 

to protect both public health and the 

public welfare (e.g., visibility, crops and 

vegetation). Particle pollution, 

especially fine particles, affects both. 

The human health effects associated 

with long- or short-term exposure to 

PM2.5 are significant and include 

premature mortality, aggravation of 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

(as indicated by increased hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits) 

and development of chronic respiratory 

disease. In addition, welfare effects 

associated with elevated PM2.5 levels 

include visibility impairment as well as 

effects on sensitive ecosystems, 

materials damage and soiling and 

climatic and radiative processes. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

NAAQS for PM to add new standards 

for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the 

indicator. See 62 FR 38652. Previously, 

EPA used PM10 (inhalable particles 

smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers 

in diameter) as the indicator for the PM 

NAAQS. EPA established health-based 

(primary) annual and 24-hour standards 

for PM2.5, setting an annual standard at 

a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) and a 24-hour standards at a 

level of 65 mg/m3. Id. At the time EPA 

established the 1997 primary standards, 

EPA also established welfare-based 

(secondary) standards identical to the 

primary standards. Id. The secondary 

standards are designed to protect against 

major environmental effects of PM2.5, 

such as visibility, impairment, soiling, 

and materials damage. Id. On October 

17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and 

secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. See 71 FR 

61236. In that rulemaking, EPA reduced 

the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 mg/ 

m3 and retained the existing annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. Id. On 

December 14, 2012, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule 

revising the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 

mg/m3. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 

2013). 

Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated, section 110(a) of the CAA 

obligates states to submit SIP revisions 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

new or revised NAAQS within three 

years following promulgation of such 

NAAQS—the so-called infrastructure 

SIP revisions. Although states typically 

have met many of the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submittals in 

connection with previous PM standards, 

states were still required to submit SIP 

revisions that address section 110(a)(2) 

for the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s May 16, 2011, and 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittals 

addressing NSR requirements? 

North Carolina provided its May 16, 

2011, and September 5, 2013, SIP 

submittals to, among other things, 

comply with federal permitting 

requirements related to implementation 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS through the NSR 

program. The relevant federal PM2.5

permitting requirements for SIPs, set 

forth in 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, were 

promulgated by EPA in the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the 

2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. States were 

required to make their SIP submittals to 

address the requirements of the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule no later 

than May 16, 2011, and to make their 

submittals to address the requirements 

of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule no later than 

July 20, 2012. 

A. North Carolina’s SIP Submittal 

Changes Regarding the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule 

North Carolina submitted its SIP to 

comply with the requirements of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

on May 16, 2011. Subsequently, on 

September 5, 2013, North Carolina 

submitted an update to its original 

submittal to correct a deficiency related 

to the significant emission rate for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor to 

PM2.5 formation. Background on the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

and EPA’s analysis of North Carolina’s 

SIP submittals to comply with that rule 

is provided below. 

1. Background on EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule 

On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the NSR 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28799 

2Under the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, VOC is 

presumed not to be a precursor to PM2.5 unless the 

state demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of 

VOC from sources in a specific area are a significant 

contributor to that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

3Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule authorized states to adopt 

provisions in their nonattainment NSR rules that 

allowed for ‘‘interpollutant trading’’ for emission 

offsets. Specifically, the rule authorized states to 

allow new major stationary sources and major 

modifications in PM2.5 nonattainment areas to offset 

increases of direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5

precursors with reductions of either direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors in accordance with 

interpollutant offset ratios contained in the area’s 

approved SIP. North Carolina elected not to include 

interpollutant trading ratios in its final SIP 

submittals and therefore will not be implementing 

interpollutant trading at this time. 

4The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra 

Club, American Lung Association, and Medical 

Advocates for Healthy Air challenged before the DC 

Circuit EPA’s April 25, 2007, Rule entitled ‘‘Clean 

Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,’’ 72 FR 

20586, which established detailed implementation 

regulations to assist states with the development of 

SIPs to demonstrate attainment for the 1997 Annual 

and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the separate May 

16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule (which 

is considered in this proposed rulemaking). This 

proposed rulemaking only pertains to the impacts 

of the Court’s decision on the May 16, 2008, NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

5The rule is titled ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ Final Rule, 79 FR 31566 

(June 2, 2014). This final rule also identifies the 

initial classification of current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

nonattainment areas as moderate and the EPA 

guidance and relevant rulemakings that are 

currently available regarding implementation of 

subpart 4 requirements. 

6The nonattainment area for the Greensboro Area 

for the 1997 PM2.5 standard was comprised of 

Guilford and Davidson counties. 

7The nonattainment area for the Hickory Area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard was comprised of Catawba 

County only. 

8Formerly the North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. 

permitting program. See 73 FR 28321. 

The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule revised the federal NSR program 

requirements to establish the framework 

for implementing preconstruction 

permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. Among other things, the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule required states to 

incorporate into their SIPs the following 

components of the NSR program for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) The requirement for 

NSR permits to address directly emitted 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants that 

contribute to the secondary formation of 

PM2.5; (2) significant emission rates for 

direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

that lead to the secondary formation of 

PM2.5 (including SO2, NOX, and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) 2); (3) NNSR 

PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) the 

requirement for applicability 

determinations and emission limits in 

PSD and NNSR permits to account for 

gases that condense to form particles 

(condensables) in PM2.5 and PM10.3

North Carolina’s May 16, 2011, SIP 

submittal (as revised by the State’s 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittal) 

addresses the PSD and NNSR provisions 

established in EPA’s May 16, 2008, NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule. Two key 

issues, the NSR PM2.5 litigation and 

condensable particulate matter 

emissions, are described in greater 

detail below. 

a. NSR PM2.5 Litigation 

On January 4, 2013, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (hereafter referred to 

as the DC Circuit or Court) issued a 

judgment 4 that remanded two of EPA’s 

rules promulgated for implementation 

of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

See Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

The Court found that EPA erred in 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

these rules solely pursuant to the 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, 

rather than pursuant to the additional 

implementation provisions specific to 

particulate matter nonattainment areas 

in subpart 4. EPA had developed the 

NNSR requirements in the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule pursuant to 

the general nonattainment requirements 

of subpart 1 of Part D, title I, of the CAA. 

Relative to subpart 1, subpart 4 of Part 

D, title I includes additional provisions 

that apply to PM10 nonattainment and is 

more specific about what states must do 

to bring areas into attainment. In 

particular, subpart 4 includes section 

189(e) of the CAA, which requires the 

control of major stationary sources of 

PM10 precursors (and hence under the 

court decision, PM2.5 precursors) 

‘‘except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

which exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

The Court found that subpart 4 applies 

to PM2.5 nonattainment and ordered 

EPA to repromulgate the 2008 PM2.5

Implementation Rule pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule promulgated new NSR 

requirements for implementation of 

PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(NNSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). As Subpart 4 includes 

requirements only pertinent to 

nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 rule 

that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the Court’s opinion. 

On June 2, 2014, EPA published a 

final rule 5 which, in part, set a 

December 31, 2014, deadline for states 

to make any remaining required SIP 

submittals needed for an attainment 

plan or the NNSR program, pursuant to 

and considering the application of 

subpart 4. See 79 FR 31566. 

Requirements under subpart 4 for a 

moderate nonattainment area are 

generally comparable to subpart 1, 

including: (1) CAA section 189(a)(1)(A) 

(NNSR permit program); (2) section 

189(a)(1)(B) (attainment demonstration 

or demonstration that attainment by the 

applicable attainment date is 

impracticable); (3) section 189(a)(1)(C) 

(reasonably available control measures 

and reasonably available control 

technology; and (4) section 189(c) 

(reasonable further progress and 

quantitative milestones). The additional 

requirements pursuant to subpart 4 as 

opposed to subpart 1 correspond to 

section 189(e) (precursor requirements 

for major stationary sources). Further 

additional SIP planning requirements 

are introduced by subpart 4 in the event 

that a moderate nonattainment area is 

reclassified to a serious nonattainment 

area, or in the event that the moderate 

nonattainment area needs additional 

time to attain the NAAQS. The 

additional requirements under subpart 4 

are not applicable for the purposes of 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) in any area 

that has submitted a complete 

redesignation request prior to the due 

date for those requirements; therefore, 

EPA is not required to consider subpart 

4 requirements for moderate 

nonattainment areas that have 

submitted a redesignation request prior 

to December 31, 2014, or for any area 

that has already been redesignated to 

attainment. See 79 FR at 31570. 

Two areas were initially designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in North Carolina: The 

Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point 

Area (hereafter referred to as the 

Greensboro Area) 6 and the HickoryMorganton-Lenoir Area (hereafter 

referred to as the Hickory Area).7 On 

December 18, 2009 (later supplemented 

on December 22, 2010), NC DEQ 8

submitted redesignation requests for the 

Greensboro Area and the Hickory Area. 

These requests were granted, and the 

Greensboro Area and the Hickory Area 

were both redesignated to attainment on 

November 18, 2011. See 76 FR 71455 

and 76 FR 71452, respectively. Because 

the counties comprising these areas 

have been redesignated to attainment, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28800 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

9Paragraph (w) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (effective 

date January 2, 2011) and Paragraph (o) of 15A 

NCAC 02D .0531 (effective date January 2, 2011) 

states: ‘‘The reference to the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) in this Rule are incorporated by 

reference unless a specific reference states 

otherwise. Except for 40 CFR 81.334, the version of 

the CFR incorporated in this Rule is that as of May 

16, 2008, and does not include any subsequent 

amendments or editions to the referenced material.’’ 

10As discussed above, on October 25, 2012, EPA 

removed the requirement that condensable PM be 

included in measurements of ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions.’’ See 77 FR 65107. 

and no portions of North Carolina were 

designated nonattainment for either the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, the State has no existing PM2.5

nonattainment areas. Therefore, the 

State is not currently required to 

regulate PM2.5 as part of its NNSR 

permitting program and, accordingly, 

the State did not need to submit 

additional SIP elements for PM2.5 to 

satisfy the Subpart 4 requirements. 

b. Condensables 

In the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA 

revised the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ for PSD by adding paragraph 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), which provided that 

‘‘particulate matter (PM) emissions, 

PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions’’ 

shall include gaseous emissions from a 

source or activity which condense to 

form PM at ambient temperatures and 

that on or after January 1, 2011, such 

condensable PM shall be accounted for 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in permits. See 73 

FR at 28335. A similar paragraph 

revised the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in the NNSR rule but 

specified applicability to only ‘‘PM2.5

emissions and PM10 emissions’’ and not 

to ‘‘particulate matter (PM) emissions.’’ 

See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D). 

Subsequently, EPA concluded that the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule’s requirement that 

the measurement of ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ (as opposed to PM2.5 or 

PM10) must include the condensable 

fraction of primary PM was an 

inadvertent error. On October 25, 2012, 

EPA corrected this inadvertent error by 

revising the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ contained in the 

regulations for PSD at 40 CFR 51.166 

and 52.21, and in EPA’s Emission Offset 

Interpretative Ruling at 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix S. See 77 FR 65107. In taking 

that action, EPA explained that 

requiring inclusion of condensable PM 

in measurements of ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ would have little if any 

effect on preventing significant air 

quality deterioration or on efforts to 

attain the primary and secondary PM 

NAAQS. See 77 FR at 65112. Thus, as 

revised, the federal PSD regulations do 

not require the inclusion of condensable 

PM in measurements of ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions,’’ except where either 

the applicable NSPS compliance test 

includes the condensable PM fraction or 

the applicable implementation plan 

requires the condensable PM fraction to 

be counted. Id. 

North Carolina’s May 16, 2011, SIP 

submittal (as updated by the September 

5, 2013, submittal) adopts EPA’s 

definition for ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

requiring states to consider 

condensables (at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi)). However, because the 

State’s submittal adopts the definitions 

in the CFR as of May 16, 2008 (prior to 

EPA’s correction), the State’s rule 

requires sources to account for the 

condensable fraction in the 

measurement and regulation of ‘‘PM 

emissions’’ as well as ‘‘PM2.5 emissions’’ 

and ‘‘PM10 emissions.’’ As explained 

above, this difference between North 

Carolina’s regulations and the current 

federal PSD regulations does not impact 

North Carolina’s efforts to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to attain and maintain compliance with 

the PM NAAQS. 

2. EPA’s Analysis of North Carolina’s 

SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

In a May 16, 2011, SIP submittal 

intended to satisfy the State’s 

obligations under the 2008 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, North Carolina 

proposed to incorporate by reference 

(IBR) into North Carolina’s SIP, with 

one exception, the relevant portions of 

the federal PSD and NNSR permitting 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165 

effective as of May 16, 2008.9

Specifically, North Carolina’s May 16, 

2011, submittal incorporates by 

reference into North Carolina’s PSD 

regulations at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 

(state effective date January 2, 2011) and 

into North Carolina’s NNSR regulations 

at 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state effective 

date January 2, 2011) the following PSD 

and NNSR provisions promulgated in 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule: (1) The requirement for PSD and 

NNSR permits to address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(SO2 and NOX (as codified at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C) and 

51.166(b)(49)); (2) the significant 

emission rates for direct PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutant (SO2) (as codified at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 

51.166(b)(23)(i)); (3) the NNSR PM2.5

emission offsets (as codified at 

51.165(9)(i)); and (4) the PSD and NNSR 

requirement that condensable PM, PM10

and PM2.5 emissions be accounted in 

PSD applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

permitting (as codified at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D) and 

51.166(b)(49)).10

The one exception to North Carolina’s 

IBR of relevant requirements from the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule in 

the State’s May 16, 2011, submittal is 

the significant emissions rate for NOX as 

a precursor to the secondary formation 

of PM2.5. Specifically, instead of 

incorporating the 40 tons per year (tpy) 

significant emission rate for NOX as a 

PM2.5 precursor (set forth at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i)), the state regulations 

included in North Carolina’s May 16, 

2011, SIP submittal set the rate at 140 

tpy for both PSD and NNSR (at 15A 

NCAC 02D .0530(b)(4) and 15A NCAC 

02D .0531(a)(3)). 

As mentioned above, in the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule, EPA promulgated final rules 

governing the implementation of NSR 

program for PM2.5 including adding 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and their precursors of SO2 and 

NOX. EPA’s permitting program uses 

significant emission rates to determine 

the applicability of major NSR 

requirements to existing sources 

undergoing modifications. Specifically, 

EPA established the federal definition of 

‘‘significant’’ for PM2.5 is 40 tpy for NOX

unless it is demonstrated not to be a 

PM2.5 precursor as provided under the 

definition of ‘‘Regulated NSR 

Pollutant.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i). 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166, a SIP can be 

more stringent than required by 40 CFR 

51.166 but not less stringent. Under the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule, 

unless the state demonstrates that NOX

is not a significant contributor to PM2.5

in a specific area, the significance 

threshold for NOX as a PM2.5 precursor 

can be no higher than 40 tpy. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i). North Carolina did not 

submit a demonstration that NOX is not 

a significant contributor to PM2.5

formation in the State. Thus, North 

Carolina’s adoption of a significant 

emission rate of 140 tpy for NOX as a 

precursor to PM2.5 in its May 16, 2011, 

SIP submittal is inconsistent with the 

federal requirements. 

In a subsequent SIP submittal, dated 

September 5, 2013, North Carolina 

revised the significant emission rate for 

NOX as a PM2.5 precursor. Specifically, 

North Carolina submitted updated 

versions of 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (state 

effective date September 1, 2013) and 

15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state effective 

date September 1, 2013) that IBR the 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28801 

11The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule also gave states 

discretion to adopt PM2.5 SILs and a SMC. See 75 

FR at 64900. On January 22, 2013, the DC Circuit 

vacated and remanded to EPA the portions of 50 

CFR 51.166 and 52.21 addressing the PM2.5 SILs 

and also vacated the parts of the rule that 

established the PM2.5 SMC. North Carolina’s 

September 5, 2013, submittal does not include SILs 

or SMC so these regulatory provisions are not 

relevant to today’s proposed action. 

12Section 169(4) of the CAA provides that the 

baseline concentration of a pollutant for a particular 

baseline area is generally the air quality at the time 

of the first application for a PSD permit in the area. 

federal rate of 40 tpy for NOX as a PM2.5

precursor into the North Carolina. See 

15A NCAC 02D .0530(b)(4) (PSD 

regulations) and 15A NCAC 02D 

.0531(a)(3) (NNSR regulations). 

Therefore, the 140 tpy significant 

emission rate for NOX as a PM2.5

precursor originally proposed in North 

Carolina’s May 16, 2008, SIP submittal 

has been replaced and is no longer 

before the Agency for review and 

consideration. 

EPA notes that North Carolina’s 

submittal contains provisions relevant 

to nonattainment NSR programs for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Specifically, 

in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant,’’ the submittal provides that 

SO2 is a PM2.5 precursor, NOX is 

presumed to be a PM2.5 precursor, and 

VOCs and ammonia are presumed to not 

be PM2.5 precursors. This provision is 

consistent with the nonattainment NSR 

regulations promulgated in the 2008 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. 

However, as mentioned above, on 

January 4, 2013, the DC Circuit, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d at 428, issued a decision 

that remanded the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule back to EPA. The 

Court held that the provisions of subpart 

4 of the CAA apply in areas designated 

nonattainment for a PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These subpart 4 requirements, as 

applied to PM2.5, include section 189(e) 

of the CAA, which requires the control 

of major stationary sources of PM2.5 and 

all PM2.5 precursors, i.e., SO2, NOX, 

VOC, and ammonia, in PM2.5

nonattainment areas unless the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources of a particular precursor do not 

contribute significantly to levels that 

exceed the standard in the 

nonattainment area. 

Although the State’s submittal only 

requires regulation of SO2 and NOX as 

PM2.5 precursors in its NNSR permitting 

program, the State of North Carolina has 

no PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, EPA finds it reasonable to 

conclude that major sources of VOCs 

and ammonia currently do not 

contribute significantly to PM2.5

nonattainment within the State. Thus, 

there is no need at this time for the State 

to regulate VOCs or ammonia as PM2.5

precursors in the State’s nonattainment 

NSR permitting program, and this issue 

does not prevent EPA from approving 

the PM2.5 precursor provisions in North 

Carolina’s May 16, 2011, SIP submittal 

(as revised by the State’s September 5, 

2013 submittal). Should EPA in the 

future designate an area in North 

Carolina as nonattainment for PM2.5, the 

State would have the obligation to 

submit a SIP revision demonstrating 

that the nonattainment NSR program 

meets all applicable requirements for 

PM2.5, including appropriate control of 

major sources of PM2.5 precursors under 

189(e). See CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 

189(a)(1)(A), (2)(B). 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that North Carolina’s May 16, 2011, SIP 

submittal, as updated by the September 

5, 2013 SIP submittal, satisfies the 

requirements of the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule. Consequently, 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s submittal (as updated) and to 

incorporate 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (state 

effective date September 1, 2013) and 

15A NCAC 02D .0531 (state effective 

date September 1, 2013) into North 

Carolina’s SIP, with the exception of 

certain regulatory provisions identified 

and discussed below. 

B. North Carolina’s SIP Submittal 

Changes Regarding the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Rule 

North Carolina submitted its SIP to 

comply with the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule 

on September 5, 2013. Background on 

the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule and EPA’s 

analysis of North Carolina’s SIP 

submittal to comply with that rule is 

provided below. 

1. Background on EPA’s 2010 PSD PM2.5

Rule 

a. Requirements of the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Rule for PSD SIP Programs 

EPA finalized the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Rule to provide additional regulatory 

requirements under the PSD SIP 

program regarding the implementation 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR at 

64864. The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule 

required states to submit SIP revisions 

to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting 

provisions equivalent to or at least as 

stringent as the PSD increments and 

associated implementing regulations. 

Specifically, the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule 

requires states to adopt and submit for 

EPA approval into their SIP the 

numerical PM2.5 increments 

promulgated pursuant to section 166(a) 

of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas 

meeting the NAAQS. States are also 

required to adopt and submit for EPA 

approval revisions to the definitions for 

‘‘major source baseline date,’’ ‘‘minor 

source baseline date,’’ and ‘‘baseline 

area’’ as part of the implementing 

regulations for the PM2.5 increment.11

b. Requirement for PM2.5 Increments 

As established in part C of title I of 

the CAA, EPA’s PSD program protects 

public health from adverse effects of air 

pollution by ensuring that construction 

of new major sources or modifications 

in attainment or unclassifiable areas 

does not lead to significant deterioration 

of air quality while simultaneously 

ensuring that economic growth will 

occur in a manner consistent with 

preservation of clean air resources. 

Under section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, a 

PSD permit applicant must demonstrate 

that emissions from the proposed 

construction and operation of a facility 

‘‘will not cause, or contribute to, air 

pollution in excess of any maximum 

allowable increase or allowable 

concentration for any pollutant.’’ In 

other words, when a source applies for 

a permit to emit a regulated pollutant in 

an area that is designated as attainment 

or unclassifiable for a NAAQS, the state 

and EPA must determine if emissions of 

the regulated pollutant from the source 

will cause significant deterioration in 

air quality. Significant deterioration 

occurs when the amount of the new 

pollution exceeds the applicable PSD 

increment, which is the ‘‘maximum 

allowable increase’’ of an air pollutant 

allowed to occur above the applicable 

baseline concentration 12 for that 

pollutant. Therefore, an increment is the 

mechanism used to estimate ‘‘significant 

deterioration’’ of air quality for a 

pollutant in an area. 

For purposes of calculating increment 

consumption, a baseline area for a 

particular pollutant includes the 

attainment or unclassifiable area in 

which the source is located, as well as 

any other attainment or unclassifiable 

area in which the source’s emissions of 

that pollutant are projected (by air 

quality modeling) to result in a 

significant ambient pollutant increase. 

See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(ii). Once the 

baseline area is established, subsequent 

PSD sources locating in that area need 

to consider that a portion of the 

available increment may have already 

been consumed by previous emissions 

increases. 

In general, the submittal date of the 

first complete PSD permit application in 

a particular area is the operative 

‘‘baseline date’’ after which new sources 

must evaluate increment 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28802 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

13Baseline dates are pollutant-specific. That is, a 

complete PSD application establishes the baseline 

date only for those regulated NSR pollutants that 

are projected to be emitted in significant amounts 

(as defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s 

new source or modification. Thus, an area may have 

different baseline dates for different pollutants. 

14EPA generally characterized the PM2.5 NAAQS 

as a NAAQS for a new indicator of PM. EPA did 

not replace the PM10 NAAQS with the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 when the PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 

1997. EPA rather retained the Annual and 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM10 (retaining PM10 as an indicator of 

coarse particulate matter) and treated PM2.5 as a 

new pollutant for purposes of developing 

increments. See 75 FR at 64864. 

15EPA interprets section 166(a) to authorize EPA 

to promulgate pollutant-specific PSD regulations 

meeting the requirements of section 166(c) and 

166(d) for any pollutant for which EPA promulgates 

a NAAQS after 1977. 

16North Carolina’s draft revisions to 15A NCAC 

02D .0530 would have used incorporation by 

reference (IBR) to adopt the federal regulations in 

the CFR as of October 20, 2010. In the final 

regulations, however, North Carolina chose to retain 

the former IBR date of May 16, 2008. North Carolina 

also chose in the final regulations to incorporate the 

numerical PM2.5 increments directly into the text of 

15A NCAC 02D .0530 rather than to incorporate the 

increments by reference. However, North Carolina’s 

decision to IBR the provisions in the 2008 CFR 

rather than the provisions in the 2010 CFR meant 

that North Carolina did not adopt into its 

regulations the definitions of ‘‘major source 

baseline,’’ ‘‘minor source baseline,’’ and ‘‘baseline 

area’’ that EPA promulgated in the 2010 PSD PM2.5

rule. Rather, North Carolina adopted the definition 

of these terms as they appeared in the version of 

the CFR in effect as of May 16, 2008. Thus, the 

definition of ‘‘major source baseline date’’ 

incorporated into 15A NCAC 02D .0530 does not 

include the federally required PM2.5 major source 

baseline date of October 20, 2010, but instead states: 

‘‘In the case of particulate matter and sulfur 

dioxide, January 6, 1975.’’ Likewise, the definition 

of ‘‘minor source baseline date’’ incorporated into 

15A NCAC 02D .0530 does not include the federally 

required PM2.5 trigger date of October 20, 2011, but 

instead states: ‘‘In the case of particulate matter and 

sulfur dioxide, August 7, 1977.’’ It is EPA’s 

understanding that North Carolina interprets the 

term ‘‘particulate matter’’ in these definitions to 

encompass PM2.5.

consumption.13 On or before the date of 

the first complete PSD application, 

emissions generally are considered to be 

part of the baseline concentration from 

which increment consumption is 

calculated, except for certain changes in 

emissions from major stationary 

sources. Emissions increases that occur 

after the baseline date will be counted 

toward the amount of increment 

consumed. Similarly, emissions 

decreases after the applicable baseline 

date restore or expand the amount of 

increment that is available. 

In practice, three dates related to the 

PSD baseline concept are important in 

understanding how to calculate the 

amount of increment consumed—(1) 

trigger date; (2) major source baseline 

date; and (3) minor source baseline date. 

The first relevant date is the trigger date. 

The trigger date, as the name implies, is 

a fixed date that triggers the overall 

increment consumption process 

nationwide. See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(ii). The two remaining 

dates—‘‘major source baseline date’’ and 

‘‘minor source baseline date’’—are 

necessary to properly account for the 

emissions that are to be counted toward 

the amount of increment consumed 

following the national trigger date, in 

accordance with the statutory definition 

of ‘‘baseline concentration’’ in section 

169(4) of the Act. The ‘‘major source 

baseline date,’’ which precedes the 

trigger date, is the date after which 

actual changes in emissions associated 

with construction at any major 

stationary source affect the PSD 

increment. Such changes in emissions 

are not included in the baseline 

concentration, even if the changes in 

emissions occur before the minor source 

baseline date. In accordance with the 

statutory definition of ‘‘baseline 

concentration’’ at section 169(4), the 

PSD regulations define a fixed date to 

represent the major source baseline date 

for each pollutant for which an 

increment exists. The ‘‘minor source 

baseline date’’ is the earliest date after 

the trigger date on which a source or 

modification submits the first complete 

application for a PSD permit in a 

particular area. This is the date on 

which the baseline concentration is 

generally established. After the minor 

source baseline date, any change in 

actual emissions (from both major and 

minor sources) affects the PSD 

increment for that area. 

Once the minor source baseline date 

is established, the new emissions 

increase from the major source 

submitting the first PSD application 

consumes a portion of the increment in 

that area, as do any subsequent actual 

emissions increases that occur from any 

new or existing source in the area. 

When the maximum pollutant 

concentration increase defined by the 

increment has been reached, additional 

PSD permits cannot be issued until 

sufficient amounts of the increment are 

‘‘freed up’’ via emissions reductions that 

may occur voluntarily (e.g., via source 

shutdowns) or by mandatory control 

requirements imposed by the reviewing 

authority. Moreover, the air quality in a 

region cannot deteriorate to a level in 

excess of the applicable NAAQS, even 

if all the increment in the area has not 

been consumed. Therefore, new or 

modified sources located in areas where 

the air pollutant concentrations are near 

the level allowed by the NAAQS may 

not have full use of the amount of 

pollutant concentration increase 

allowed by the increment. 

In the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, pursuant 

to the authority under section 166(a) of 

the CAA, EPA promulgated numerical 

increments for PM2.5 as a new 

pollutant 14 for which NAAQS were 

established after August 7, 1977,15 and 

derived 24-hour and annual PM2.5

increments for the three area 

classifications (Class I, II and III). See 75 

FR at 64869 and the ambient air 

increment table at 40 CFR 51.166(c)(1). 

EPA also established the PM2.5 ‘‘trigger 

date’’ as October 20, 2011 (40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c)), and the PM2.5

‘‘major source baseline date’’ as October 

20, 2010 (40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i). See 

75 FR at 64903. Finally, EPA amended 

the term ‘‘baseline area’’ at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i) to include a level of 

significance of 0.3 mg/m3, annual 

average, for establishing a new baseline 

area for purposes of PM2.5 increments. 

Id. 

2. EPA’s Analysis of North Carolina’s 

SIP Submittal Changes Regarding the 

2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule 

North Carolina’s September 5, 2013, 

SIP submittal adopts into the State’s 

PSD permitting program at 15A NCAC 

02D .0530 changes purporting to meet 

the requirements for PM2.5 increments 

in EPA’s 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. 

However, while North Carolina’s 

revised PSD regulations incorporate the 

numerical PM2.5 increments at 

paragraphs (q) and (v) of 15A NCAC 02D 

.0530, the regulations do not include 

other key regulatory provisions needed 

to implement the PM2.5 increments in 

accordance with federal requirements. 

Specifically, North Carolina’s changes to 

15A NCAC 02D .0530 fail to incorporate 

the following federal requirements 

pertaining to implementation of PM2.5

increments: (1) the definition of 

‘‘[m]ajor source baseline date’’ for PM2.5

codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) 

(defined as October 20, 2010); (2) the 

definition of ‘‘[m]inor source baseline 

date’’ for PM2.5 codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(14)(ii)(c) (which establishes 

the PM2.5 trigger date as October 20, 

2011); and (3) the definition of 

‘‘[b]aseline area’’ codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(15)(i).16

Without the federally required 

definitions of ‘‘major source baseline 

date,’’ ‘‘minor source baseline date,’’ 

and ‘‘baseline area’’ set forth in the 2010 

PSD PM2.5 Rule, North Carolina’s PSD 

regulations do not require PSD sources 

to conduct the appropriate analyses 

demonstrating that emissions from 

proposed construction of major sources 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28803 

17Paragraph (v) establishes the numerical PM2.5

increments. Paragraph (q) addresses the Class I 

PM2.5 variances. Paragraph (e) incorporates 

paragraph (v) by reference. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), 

(q), and (v) in part, rather than in their entirety, 

because the paragraphs also include previously 

approved PM10 increment requirements. 

Specifically, in addition to making the PM2.5-related 

changes to these paragraphs, North Carolina also 

revised 15A NCAC 02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), 

and (v), to directly incorporate the PM10

increments. Previously, North Carolina had 

incorporated the PM10 increments into 15A NCAC 

02D .0530 by reference to the CFR. EPA is 

proposing to approve the PM10-related changes to 

paragraphs (e), (q), and (v). 

18Currently, there are no nonattainment areas in 

the State, and thus the list of nonattainment areas 

approved in the current SIP is out of date. 

19FLM notification is needed to enable the FLMs 

to fulfill their obligation under 50 CFR 51.166(p)(2) 

‘‘to protect the air quality related values (including 

visibility) of [Class I lands] and to consider, in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a 

proposed source or modification would have an 

adverse impact on such values.’’ 

or modifications will not cause or 

contribute to air pollution beyond the 

PM2.5 increment. While a State has the 

option of demonstrating that it has 

alternative measures in its plan other 

than the PM2.5 increment requirements 

that satisfy the prevention of significant 

deterioration requirements under 

sections 166(c) and 166(d) of the CAA 

(see 40 CFR 51.166(c)(2)), North 

Carolina did not offer any such 

demonstration in connection with its 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittal. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove 

the portion of North Carolina’s 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittal 

pertaining to adoption and 

implementation of the PM2.5 PSD 

increments on the basis that, taken as a 

whole, they are insufficient to satisfy 

the federal PM2.5 PSD increment 

requirements set forth in the 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule. Specifically, EPA proposes 

to disapprove the changes to 15A NCAC 

02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), and (v) 

that pertain to the PM2.5 increments.17

EPA notes that while the numerical 

PM2.5 increments at paragraphs (q) and 

(v) correctly reflect the numerical PM2.5

increments required by EPA’s 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule, EPA proposes to disapprove 

these provisions because North Carolina 

cannot properly apply the PM2.5

increments without adopting the 

associated definitions of ‘‘major source 

baseline date,’’ ‘‘minor source baseline 

date,’’ and ‘‘baseline area.’’ 

C. North Carolina’s Miscellaneous SIP 

Submittal Changes Regarding the NSR 

Program 

In addition to providing SIP 

submittals to comply with the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule and 2010 

PSD PM2.5 Rule, North Carolina 

provided administrative changes in the 

second of two May 16, 2011, SIP 

submittals (henceforth, the second May 

16, 2011, SIP submittal) and in the 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittal, for 

the State’s NSR regulations at 15A 

NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 

02D .0531 (NNSR). First, North 

Carolina’s second May 16, 2011, SIP 

submittal makes changes to clarify that 

BACT for PSD and LAER for NSR 

applies to all new natural gas-fired 

EGUs for which cost recovery is sought 

under the State’s Clean Smokestacks Act 

(CSA). North Carolina’s intended 

purpose for the rule clarification is to 

ensure that new-natural gas-fired EGUs 

that claim cost recovery pursuant to the 

CSA will not utilize the emission 

reductions to avoid BACT or LAER 

under the PSD or NNSR programs, 

respectively. EPA is proposing to 

approve this change to North Carolina’s 

SIP for both rules 15A NCAC 02D .0530 

and 15A NCAC 02D .0531. 

Second, North Carolina’s second May 

16, 2011, SIP submittal revises 15A 

NCAC 02D .0531(c) by removing out-ofdate, pollutant-specific nonattainment 

area references (for ozone and carbon 

monoxide) in the State,18 and instead 

proposes to rely on the geographical 

nonattainment descriptions codified at 

40 CFR 81.334 to promptly and 

accurately identify which areas in the 

State (for all NAAQS) are designated 

nonattainment, and thus are subject to 

NNSR permitting regulations. This 

change establishes these requirements 

for all future designated nonattainment 

areas. By relying on the automatic 

updates from changes to 40 CFR 81.334, 

this change would prevent any 

regulatory confusion and potential SIP 

gaps for identifying current 

nonattainment in the State subject to 

NNSR. EPA is proposing to approve this 

change as it is consistent with the CAA 

and EPA’s requirements for NNSR. 

Third, North Carolina’s second May 

16, 2011, SIP submittal requests removal 

of language at 15A NCAC 02D .0531(n), 

which references text being deleted 

from 15A NCAC 02D .0531(c), as 

discussed above, and provides that 

certain permitting requirements for new 

major stationary sources or 

modifications of VOC and NOX

emissions do not apply to sources that 

can demonstrate through urban airshed 

modeling that they would not contribute 

to a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The 

applicable time period for this provision 

is between the notification in the North 

Carolina Register of an ozone NAAQS 

violation in certain area(s) of the State 

and the designation of such area(s) as 

nonattainment in 40 CFR 81.334. 

However, because 15A NCAC 02D 

.0531(c) is being revised to rely solely 

on the nonattainment area designations 

codified at 40 CFR 81.334 and not on 

the State’s notification of ozone NAAQS 

violations, the language at 15A NCAC 

02D .0531(n) will be obsolete. EPA is 

proposing to approve this change. 

Fourth, North Carolina’s second May 

16, 2011, SIP submittal revises language 

at 15A NCAC 02D .0530(t) and 15A 

NCAC 02D .0531(m) regarding 

notification and administrative 

requirements related to visibility 

impacts to Class I Areas from proposed 

new modified sources. Specifically, 

North Carolina’s revised regulations 

generally require that the state must 

notify the Federal Land Managers (FLM) 

no later than 60 days after receipt of a 

permit application submitted pursuant 

to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) or 15A 

NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR). This 60-day 

notice requirement is in addition to the 

pre-existing requirement in North 

Carolina’s SIP-approved PSD and NNSR 

regulations that the state notify the FLM 

of any proposed new source or 

modification that may affect visibility in 

a Class I area and provide the FLM with 

‘‘a copy of all information relevant to 

the permit application including an 

analysis provided by the source of the 

potential impact of the proposed source 

on visibility.’’ See 15A NCAC 02D 

.0530(t)(2) (PSD); 15A NCAC 02D 

.0531(m)(3) (NNSR). 

North Carolina’s FLM notification 

provisions regarding proposed sources 

and modifications that may affect 

visibility in a Federal Class I area reflect 

federal regulatory requirements at 40 

CFR 51.307(a)(1) governing visibility 

protection in state NSR programs.19 EPA 

notes that the proposed changes to 

North Carolina’s FLM notification 

provisions are consistent with a letter 

EPA sent to North Carolina officials on 

April 16, 2013, which is included in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. In 

that letter, EPA generally concurred 

(with some exceptions) with North 

Carolina’s expressed understanding of 

EPA’s interpretation of the federal 

requirements governing the evaluation 

of the visibility impacts of new and 

modified sources on Class I areas under 

the PSD permitting program. 

Specifically, EPA affirmed that the 

process for determining whether a 

proposed new source or modification 

will cause an ‘‘adverse impact on 

visibility’’ in a Class I area is a two-step 

process. The first step requires an 

assessment of visibility impairment 

based on how visibility would change 

from what would have existed in the 

absence of any human-caused pollution. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28804 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

20When approving these provisions into North 

Carolina’s SIP, EPA specifically noted that North 

Carolina’s SIP incorporates the federal definitions 

of ‘‘adverse impact on visibility’’ and ‘‘visibility 

impairment.’’ 51 FR 2695 (January 21, 1986). North 

Carolina’s NNSR regulations also incorporate by 

reference the federal regulatory definitions 

pertaining to visibility impact assessment. See 15A 

NCAC 02D .0531(a). 

21Under previously approved North Carolina SIP 

provisions, North Carolina must notify the FLMs of 

any proposed new source or modification that may 

affect visibility in a Class I area and provide the 

FLMs with an analysis of the potential visibility 

impact. General FLM notification of all permit 

applications pursuant to the SIP revision proposed 

for approval in today’s notice would not replace 

North Carolina’s more specific, existing SIP 

obligations regarding FLM notification of proposed 

new or modified sources that may affect visibility 

in a Class I area. 

22For example, aside from the PM2.5-related 

changes, North Carolina also revised 15A NCAC 

02D .0530, paragraphs (e), (q), and (v), to directly 

incorporate the PM10 increments. Previously, North 

Carolina had incorporated the PM10 increments into 

15A NCAC 02D .0530 by reference to the CFR. 

North Carolina’s decision to instead incorporate the 

PM10 increments directly into state regulations does 

not change the PM10 increment requirements under 

North Carolina’s PSD program and does not impact 

EPA’s prior determination that North Carolina’s SIP 

appropriately incorporates the federal PM10

increments. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve 

North Carolina’s proposed PM10-related changes to 

paragraphs (e), (q), and (v) of 15A NCAC 02D .0530. 

This analysis must be provided to the 

appropriate FLM(s) regardless of 

whether the Class I increment is 

exceeded. The second step in the 

analysis, the determination of whether 

the source will have an adverse impact 

on visibility, requires a more holistic 

evaluation of the various factors 

affecting visibility, potentially including 

current visibility conditions and 

whether the State is on track toward 

improving visibility. EPA concluded 

that because North Carolina’s SIPapproved regulations at 15A NCAC 02D 

.0530(b) incorporate by reference the 

key federal regulatory provisions,20

North Carolina’s FLM notification 

provisions are consistent with federal 

visibility requirements. North Carolina’s 

proposed SIP revision would 

incorporate an additional FLM 

notification mechanism into North 

Carolina’s NSR procedures (generally 

requiring FLM notification of any PSD 

or NNSR permit application regardless 

of whether the proposed source or 

modification may affect visibility in a 

Class I area) and therefore does not 

conflict with the federal FLM 

notification requirements described 

above.21 Accordingly, EPA is proposing 

to approve the changes to 15A NCAC 

02D .0530(t) and 15A NCAC 02D 

.0531(m) provided in North Carolina’s 

second May 16, 2011, SIP submittal. 

Lastly, North Carolina’s September 5, 

2013, SIP submittal includes several 

administrative and typographical 

changes for the State’s NSR regulations 

at 15A NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A 

NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR). EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes to 

the extent that they do not relate to 2010 

PSD PM2.5 Rule.22 Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve all of the changes 

to 15A NCAC 02D .0531 (NNSR) and all 

of the changes to 15A NCAC 02D .0530 

(PSD) except the portions of paragraphs 

15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) 

that pertain to PM2.5 increments. As 

explained above, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the portions of paragraphs 

15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) 

that pertain to PM2.5 increments because 

they are not associated with the correct 

major source baseline date. 

In sum, EPA is proposing to approve 

into the SIP the versions of 15A NCAC 

02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 02D 

.0531 (NNSR) that became effective in 

the state on September 1, 2013, except 

the portions of paragraphs 15A NCAC 

02D .0530(e), (q), and (v) that pertain to 

PM2.5 increments. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove North Carolina’s September 

5, 2013, submittal with respect to the 

PM2.5-increment-related portions of 

paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), (q), 

and (v). 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the PSD 

elements for North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals? 

As mentioned above, as a result of 

this proposed rule to partially 

disapprove the PSD increment portion 

of North Carolina’s September 5, 2013, 

SIP submittal, EPA is proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the PSD elements of the 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2008 lead NAAQS 

(received on July 20, 2012); the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (received on 

November 2, 2012); the 2010 SO2

NAAQS (received March 18, 2014); the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS (received on August 

23, 2013); and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

(received on December 4, 2015). 

Further, EPA is proposing to convert the 

conditional approval of the PSD 

elements for North Carolina’s 1997 

PM2.5 infrastructure submittal (dated 

April 1, 2008), and North Carolina’s 

2006 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal 

(dated September 21, 2009) to partial 

approvals and partial disapprovals. The 

background for infrastructure submittal 

requirements related to PSD is provided 

below, followed by a summary of EPA’s 

analysis of the PSD elements for North 

Carolina’s 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 

lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 NO2, 

2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP submittals. In a 

technical support document for this 

proposed rulemaking, EPA provides 

more information on infrastructure 

requirements and how EPA reviews 

state submittals related to these 

requirements. 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submittals made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submittals. 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states 

to address basic SIP elements such as 

for monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the newly established or 

revised NAAQS. More specifically, 

section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for the infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. The 

contents of an infrastructure SIP 

submittal may vary depending upon the 

data and analytical tools available to the 

state, as well as the provisions already 

contained in the state’s implementation 

plan at the time in which the state 

develops and submits the submittal for 

a new or revised NAAQS. 

A. PSD Elements for Infrastructure 

Submittals for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

The PSD elements for infrastructure 

requirements are contained in section 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also 

known as prong 3), and 110(a)(2)(J). For 

the remainder of this proposed 

rulemaking, EPA’s intent in referring to 

‘‘PSD elements’’ is to address the PSD 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as prong 

3), and 110(a)(2)(J). More detail 

regarding the aforementioned 110(a)(2) 

requirements related to PSD is provided 

below. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three 

components that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submittals: 

Enforcement, state-wide regulation of 

new and modified minor sources and 

minor modifications of major sources; 

and PSD permitting of new major 

sources and major modifications in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable as required by CAA title 

I part C (i.e., the major source PSD 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28805 

23EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance, titled 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a),’’ provides advice on the 

development of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the 2010 nitrogen dioxide NAAQS, 

the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS, and the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or 

revised NAAQS promulgated in the future. 

program). With regard to section 

110(a)(2)(C), this proposed action only 

addresses North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals with 

respect to the major source PSD 

program. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these 

components has two subparts resulting 

in four distinct components, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be 

addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submittals. The first two prongs, which 

are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

are provisions that prohibit any source 

or other type of emissions activity in 

one state from contributing significantly 

to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

another state (‘‘prong 1’’), and 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state (‘‘prong 2’’). 

The third and fourth prongs, which are 

codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are 

provisions that prohibit emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or to protect 

visibility in another state (‘‘prong 4’’). 

With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

this proposed action only addresses 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for prong 3. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four 

components that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submittals: (1) 

consultation with government officials, 

(2) public notification, (3) PSD, and (4) 

visibility protection. With regard to 

section 110(a)(2)(J), today’s proposed 

action only addresses North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for PSD. 

Regarding the PSD elements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), EPA 

interprets the CAA to require each state 

to make, for each new or revised 

NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submittal 

that demonstrates that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of the PSD element of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as 

prong 3) may also be satisfied by 

demonstrating that the air agency has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. 

As described in EPA’s September 13, 

2013, guidance,23 an infrastructure SIP 

submittal should demonstrate that one 

or more air agencies has the authority to 

implement a comprehensive PSD permit 

program under CAA title I part C, for all 

PSD-subject sources located in areas 

that are designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for one or more NAAQS. 

EPA interprets the PSD elements to 

require that a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for a particular NAAQS 

demonstrate that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program in 

place covering the structural PSD 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting 

program is complete for the PSD 

elements if EPA has already approved or 

is simultaneously approving the state’s 

SIP with respect to all structural PSD 

requirements that are due under the 

EPA regulations or the CAA on or before 

the date of the EPA’s proposed action on 

the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA 

is proposing to partially approve the 

PSD elements of North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2008 lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 

NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and to disapprove these submittals with 

respect to the PM2.5 increment 

requirements of 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. 

1. 2008 Lead NAAQS 

On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the 

primary and secondary NAAQS for lead 

to 0.15 mg/m3. 73 FR 66964 (November 

12, 2008). States were required to 

submit infrastructure SIP submittals for 

the 2008 8-hour lead NAAQS to EPA no 

later than October 15, 2011. For the 

2008 lead NAAQS, this proposed action 

only addresses the PSD elements of 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals received on July 20, 2012. As 

explained above, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove North Carolina’s September 

5, 2013, SIP revision related to the PM2.5

increment requirements. Consequently, 

North Carolina’s SIP does not contain a 

fully approvable PSD program covering 

the structural PSD requirements for all 

NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve in part the PSD elements for 

North Carolina’s July 20, 2012, 

infrastructure submittal for the 2008 

lead NAAQS, and disapprove this 

submittal with respect to the PM2.5

increment requirements of 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule. EPA took action on other 

portions of North Carolina’s July 20, 

2012, SIP submittal in separate 

rulemakings. See 80 FR 12343 (March 9, 

2015); 80 FR 67645 (November 3, 2015). 

2. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 

million. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no 

later than March 12, 2011. For the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, this proposed 

action only addresses the PSD elements 

of North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal received on November 2, 

2012. As explained above, EPA is 

proposing to disapprove North 

Carolina’s September 5, 2013, SIP 

revision related to the PM2.5 increment 

requirements. Consequently, North 

Carolina’s SIP does not contain a fully 

approvable PSD program covering the 

structural PSD requirements for all 

NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve in part the PSD elements for 

North Carolina’s November 2, 2012, 

infrastructure submittal for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and disapprove 

this submittal with respect to the PM2.5

increment requirements of 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule. EPA took action on portions 

of North Carolina’s November 2, 2012, 

SIP submittal in separate rulemakings. 

See 80 FR 67645 (November 3, 2015); 80 

FR 68453 (November 5, 2015). 

3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

On January 22, 2010, EPA established 

a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2

at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no 

later than January 22, 2013. For the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS, this proposed 

action only addresses the PSD elements 

of North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittal received on August 23, 2013. 

As explained above, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove North Carolina’s September 

5, 2013, SIP revision related to the PM2.5

increment requirements. Consequently, 

North Carolina’s SIP does not contain a 

fully approvable PSD program covering 

the structural PSD requirements for all 

NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve in part the PSD elements for 

North Carolina’s August 23, 2013, 

infrastructure submittal for the 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS, and disapprove this 

submittal with respect to the PM2.5

increment requirements of 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the 

remainder of North Carolina’s August 

23, 2013 SIP submittal through a 

separate rulemaking. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28806 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

24 In North Carolina’s July 10, 2012, request for 

conditional approval of the State’s infrastructure 

submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the State 

committed to revising its rules to reflect the 40 tons 

per year significance level for NOX as a PM2.5

precursor and to adopt the 2006 PM2.5 PSD 

increments. 

4. 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 

primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly 

standard of 75 ppb based on a 3-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States 

were required to submit infrastructure 

SIP submittals for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 

2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

this proposed action only addresses the 

PSD elements of North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal received on 

March 18, 2014. As explained above, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove North 

Carolina’s September 5, 2013, SIP 

revision related to the PM2.5 increment 

requirements. Consequently, North 

Carolina’s SIP does not contain a fully 

approvable PSD program covering the 

structural PSD requirements for all 

NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve in part the PSD elements for 

North Carolina’s March 18, 2014, 

infrastructure submittal for the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, and disapprove this 

submittal with respect to the PM2.5

increment requirements of 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the 

remainder of North Carolina’s March 18, 

2014, SIP submittal through a separate 

rulemaking. 

5. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

On December 14, 2012, EPA revised 

the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 

mg/m3. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 

2013). An area will meet the standard if 

the three-year average of its annual 

average PM2.5 concentration (at each 

monitoring site in the area) is less than 

or equal to 12.0 mg/m3. States were 

required to submit infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to 

EPA no later than December 14, 2015. 

For the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

proposed action only addresses the PSD 

elements of North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittal received on 

December 4, 2015. As explained above, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove North 

Carolina’s September 5, 2013, SIP 

revision related to the PM2.5 increment 

requirements. Consequently, North 

Carolina’s SIP does not contain a fully 

approvable PSD program covering the 

structural PSD requirements for all 

NAAQS. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve in part the PSD elements for 

North Carolina’s December 4, 2015, 

infrastructure submittal for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and disapprove this 

submittal with respect to the PM2.5

increment requirements of 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule. EPA will take action on the 

remainder of North Carolina’s December 

4, 2015, SIP submittal through a 

separate rulemaking. 

B. PSD Elements for Infrastructure 

Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS 

On October 16, 2012, and March 26, 

2013, EPA conditionally approved the 

PSD elements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

and (J) of North Carolina’s SIP 

submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, dated April 1, 2008, and 

September 21, 2009, respectively. See 

77 FR 63234 and 78 FR 18241. On April 

1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, North 

Carolina submitted infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. The 

conditional approvals were granted on 

the condition that North Carolina would 

submit complete SIP revisions to 

address deficiencies in relation to the 

State’s NSR regulations within one year 

of publication of the final conditional 

approvals.24

EPA noted in the October 16, 2012, 

final rulemaking that ‘‘[i]f North 

Carolina fails to submit these revisions 

by October 16, 2013, this conditional 

approval will automatically become a 

disapproval on that date and EPA will 

issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is 

not required to propose the finding of 

disapproval. If the conditional approval 

is converted to a disapproval, the final 

disapproval triggers the Federal 

Implementation Plan requirement under 

section 110(c). However, if the State 

meets its commitment within the 

applicable timeframe, the conditionally 

approved submittal will remain a part of 

the SIP until EPA takes final action 

approving or disapproving the new 

submittal. If EPA disapproves the new 

submittal, the conditionally approved 

submittal will also be disapproved at 

that time.’’ EPA reiterated this condition 

in the March 26, 2013, final rulemaking. 

North Carolina provided its submittal 

purporting to correct the deficiencies 

with the State’s NSR program on 

September 5, 2013. As mentioned in 

EPA’s October 16, 2012, and March 26, 

2013, final rulemakings, since North 

Carolina met the deadline to provide the 

corrective SIP revision, the conditional 

approval remains in effect until EPA 

concludes its action on the corrective 

SIP revision. This proposed action is to 

disapprove North Carolina’s September 

5, 2013, SIP submittal (i.e., the 

corrective SIP) in relation to the 

baseline for the PM2.5 PSD increment— 

a critical component for the State’s NSR 

program. Thus, EPA is proposing to 

convert EPA’s previous conditional 

approval of these PSD elements of North 

Carolina’s 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals to 

a partial approval and a partial 

disapproval for the PM2.5 increment 

component. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing 

to include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the portions of North Carolina’s 

regulations 15A NCAC 02D .0530 and 

15A NCAC 02D .0531, entitled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration’’ and ‘‘Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ respectively, 

that EPA is proposing to approve herein. 

EPA is not proposing to incorporate 

provisions for which the Agency is 

proposing to disapprove. EPA has made, 

and will continue to make, these 

documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve, in part, 

and disapprove, in part, changes to the 

North Carolina SIP, provided by the NC 

DEQ, to EPA on May 16, 2011, (two 

submittals) and September 5, 2013. 

These changes modify North Carolina’s 

NSR—PSD and NNSR—permitting 

regulations codified at 15A 02D .0530— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and 15A NCAC 02D.0531—Sources in 

Nonattainment Areas, and include the 

adoption of some federal requirements 

respecting implementation of the PM2.5

NAAQS through the NSR permitting 

program. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve the State’s changes as they 

relate to the requirements to comply 

with EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule and 

the State’s miscellaneous changes as 

described in Section II.C of this 

proposed rulemaking. EPA is proposing 

to disapprove North Carolina’s 

September 5, 2013, SIP submittal as it 

relates to the requirements to comply 

with EPA’s 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule. If EPA 

finalizes all of the actions proposed in 

today’s notice, the versions of 15A 

NCAC 02D .0530 (PSD) and 15A NCAC 

02D .0531 (NNSR) that became effective 

in the state on September 1, 2013, will 

be incorporated into North Carolina’s 

SIP, with the exception of the portions 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 10, 2016 / Proposed Rules 28807 

of paragraphs 15A NCAC 02D .0530(e), 

(q), and (v) that pertain to PM2.5

increments. EPA’s proposed disapproval 

of North Carolina’s September 5, 2013, 

SIP submittal as it relates to the 

requirements to comply with EPA’s 

2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, if finalized, will 

trigger the requirement under section 

110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no 

later than two years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency through a SIP revision and 

EPA approves the SIP revision before 

EPA promulgates such a FIP. 

As a result of the proposed 

disapproval of a portion of the State’s 

NSR requirements, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the PSD elements of the 

North Carolina’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2008 lead, 2008 8- 

hour ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; and is 

proposing to convert the Agency’s 

previous conditional approvals of the 

PSD elements of North Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to disapprovals. North 

Carolina did not submit these 

infrastructure SIPs to meet requirements 

for Part D of the CAA or a SIP call; 

therefore, if EPA takes final action to 

disapprove the PSD portions of these 

submittals, no sanctions will be 

triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this 

proposed disapproval action, that final 

action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) for EPA to 

promulgate a FIP no later than two years 

from the date of the disapproval unless 

the State corrects the deficiency through 

a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP 

revision before EPA promulgates such a 

FIP. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable federal regulations. See 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submittals, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This action approves, in part, 

and disapproves, in part, state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. EPA 

is proposing to determine that the PSD 

portion of some of the aforementioned 

SIP submittals do not meet federal 

requirements. For that reason, this 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–10894 Filed 5–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2016–0107; FRL–9946–18– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Interstate Transport for Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on the 

portions of two submissions from the 

State of Utah that are intended to 

demonstrate that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These 

submissions address the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. 

Specifically, the EPA is proposing to 

approve interstate transport prongs 1 

and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and 

proposing to disapprove prongs 1 and 2 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 9, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2016–0107 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from regulations.gov. 

The 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. The 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: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS