UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4

Ms. Sheila Holman Director Division ofAir Quality North Carolina Department of

Environment and Natural Resources 1641 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
June 30, 2015

Re: Response to North Carolina's June 26, 2015 Letter Seeking to Rescind the September 3, 2014, Withdrawal ofthe 2008 Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Certification Regarding Interstate Transport Dear Ms. Holman: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has received yourJune 26, 2015, letter to rescind North Carolina's September 3, 2014, withdrawal ofthe portion ofthe State's November 2, 2012, 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure state implementation plan (SIP) certification pertaining to interstate transport under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As noted in your letter, North Carolina withdrew the interstate transport element ofits SIP submission on September 3, 2014. You also note that since the time ofthe State's withdrawal, the EPA released preliminary modeling onJanuary 22, 2015, indicating that North Carolina may not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in any other state. Your letter concludes by stating your beliefthat the State has met its obligations under sections 1lO(a)(l) and (2) related to interstate transport and noting your expectation that the State will not receive a finding offailure to submit. Once a SIP submission is withdrawn, it is no longer before the Agency for action under section l lO(k) ofthe CAA. Rescinding a prior withdrawal is therefore not appropriate. Rescission is especially inappropriate in a case such as this, where the EPA and others substantively relied upon the withdrawal ofNorth Carolina's November 12, 2012 SIP submission. Specifically, on July 15, 2014, Sierra Club filed a complaint in the Northern District ofCalifornia alleging that the EPA had failed to take final action on North Carolina's November2, 2012, SIP submission by the statutory deadline and asking the court to order the EPA to take such final action by a date certain. SeeComplaint, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 4: 14-cv-03198-JSW, Document 1 (N
.D. Cal.). Subsequently, as noted above, North Carolina submitted a letter on September 3, 2014, withdrawing the interstate transport portion ofthe November 12, 2012, SIP submission that addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In reliance on the withdrawal ofthe CAA section l 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion ofNorth Carolina's SIP submission, on December 12, 2014, the Sierra Club filed an amended complaint that revised its claim and removed the

Internet Address (UAL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable •Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumerjallegation that the EPA had failed to act on these interstate transport provisions ofNorth Carolina's Sn>. 

### See First Amended Complaint, 

### Sierra Club v. McCanhy, CaseNo. 4:14-cv-03198-JSW, Document 29 (N.D. Cal.)
. The parties to the litigation subsequently entered into a consent decree that settled the remaining claim as to North Carolina. 

### See Judgment, 

### Sierra Club 

### v. McCanhy, Case No
. 4 : 14-cv03198-JSW, Document41 (N.D. Cal
. May 15, 2015)
. Moreover, in separate litigation pending with the Sierra Club and Wild.Earth Guardians, the plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint inreliance on the State's withdrawal ofits November 2, 2012 SIP submission alleging that EPAhad failed to make a finding offailure to submit as to North Carolina's interstate transport SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

### See Amended Complaint, 

### Sierra Club v. 

### McCanhy, Case No
. 4:14-cv-05091 (N
.D
. Cal. Jan
. 15, 2015)
. Because North Carolina withdrew its November 12, 2012 SIP submission and because the June 26, 2015
. letter relies on new information to support the State's conclusion regarding its statutory good neighbor obligations that was not contained in its November 12, 2012, SIP submission 

### (i
.e.,the preliminary air quality modeling released bythe EPA onJanuary 22, 2015), the EPA views the June 26
. 2015, letter as a new SIP submission addressing CAA section ll0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone standard. Pursuant to CAA section llO(k)(l) and 40 CFR 51.103(a), SIP submissions must meet the completeness criteria set forth in 40 CFR part 51 , Appendix V
. The EPA has reviewed yourJune 26, 2015
. letter as a SIP submission and determined that it is incomplete because it does not meetthe administrative criteria set forth in40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, sections 2.l(f) through (h) related to public notice and comment. As mentioned in your June 26, 2015, letter, the November2, 2012 submission did not contain a technical demonstration to support a conclusion that North Carolina does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe 2008 8-hour ozone standard in a neighboring state. Your September 3, 2014, letter noted that North Carolinarelied on a combination ofthe Clean Air Interstate Rule, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, and the State' s Clean Smokestacks Act to address the good neighbor requirement for the 2008 8-hourozone standard. The State did not provide any air quality modeling orothersupporting technical analysis to address the cum ulative impacts ofinterstate transport as it relates to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
. N

orth Carolina now cites to the EPA's January 22, 2015, preliminary air quality modeling results as support for the State' s determination that the State does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe 2008 8-hour ozone standard in another state. However, North Carolina has not submitted documentation showing that the State provided the public an opportunity to review and provide comment on the use ofthis preliminary air quality modeling to support the revision to North Carolina's November 2, 2012 SIP submission. thereby failing to meet the administrative requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, sections 2
.l(f) through (h). We are returning the June 26, 2015
. submission to you because the EPA has deemed it incomplete. As you are aware. the EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to issue a finding offailure to submit byJune 30, 2015, for states that have not provided complete good neighbor SIP revisions to address CAA section 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 8

-hour ozone standard. As North Carolinahas not to date submitted a complete SIP submission, we anticipate in cluding the State in this fmdings notice.We appreciate North Carolina's interest in addressing the interstate transport requirement for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and are committedto our partnership and working together to meet the requirements ofthe CAA. We encourage you to resubmit your revision once it meets the requirements set forth in40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

### Ifyou have any questions, please contact Carol L. Kemker, Deputy Director ofthe Air, Pesticides andToxics Management Division at (404) 562-8975.

Enclosure

cc: Michael Abraczinakas, NCDAQ Sushma Masemore, NCDAQ Leslie Rhodes, Mecklenburg Air Quality Beverly H. Banister, Director Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

William Barnette, Forsyth County Office ofEnvironmental Assistance and Protection David Brigman, Western Regional Air Quality Agency