UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

Ms. Sheila Holman 

Director 

Division of Air 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 of the 2008 Ozone Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Certification Regarding 

Interstate Transport 

Dear Ms. Holman: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has received your June 26, 2015, letter to rescind North 

Carolina's September 3, 2014, withdrawal of the portion of the 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 of its SIP submission on September 3, 2014. You also note that since the 

time of the State's withdrawal, the EPA released preliminary modeling on January 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 belief that the 

State has met its obligations under sections 1 lO(a)(l) and (2) related to interstate transport and noting 

your expectation that the State will not receive a finding of failure to submit. 

Once a SIP submission is withdrawn, it is no longer before the Agency for action under section l lO(k) 

of the 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 

of North Carolina's November 12, 2012 SIP submission. Specifically, on July 15, 2014, Sierra Club 

filed a complaint in the Northern District of California alleging that the EPA had failed to take final 

action on North Carolina's November 2, 2012, SIP submission by the statutory deadline and asking the 

court to order the EPA to take such final action by a date certain. See Complaint, 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 of the 

November 12, 2012, SIP submission that addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In reliance on the 

withdrawal of the CAA section l 10(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of North 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% Postconsumerj 
allegation that the EPA had failed to act on these interstate transport provisions of North Carolina's Sn>. 

See First Amended Complaint, Sierra Club v. McCanhy, Case No. 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, Document 41 (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 in reliance on the 

State's withdrawal of its November 2, 2012 SIP submission alleging that EPA had failed to make a 

finding of failure 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 by the EPA on January 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 your June 26, 

2015. letter as a SIP submission and determined that it is incomplete because it does not meet the 

administrative criteria set forth in 40 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 November 2, 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 of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in a neighboring state. 

Your September 3, 2014, letter noted that North Carolina relied on a combination of the 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-hour ozone standard. The State did not provide any air quality 

modeling or other supporting technical analysis to address the cumulative impacts of interstate transport 

as it relates to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

North 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 of the 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 of this 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 of failure to submit by June 

30, 2015, for states that have not provided complete good neighbor SIP revisions to address CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. As North Carolina has not 

to date submitted a complete SIP submission, we anticipate including 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 committed to our partnership and working together to meet the 

requirements of the CAA. We encourage you to resubmit your revision once it meets the requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. If you have any questions, please contact Carol L. Kemker, 

Deputy Director of the Air, Pesticides and Toxics 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 of Environmental Assistance and Protection 

David Brigman, Western Regional Air Quality Agency