[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19197-19202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9248]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[NC-061-1-6815; FRL-5191-3]


Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and 
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of North 
Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 12, 1993, the State of North Carolina through the 
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 
submitted a maintenance plan and a request to redesignate the 
Charlotte-Gastonia area from nonattainment to attainment for ozone 
(O<INF>3). Subsequently on December 16, 1994, and January 6, 1995, the 
State submitted supplementary information which included refined 
modeling and identification of the future reductions needed to maintain 
the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for O<INF>3. The 
Charlotte-Gastonia O<INF>3 nonattainment area includes Mecklenburg and 
Gaston Counties. Under the Clean Air Act, designations can be changed 
if sufficient data are available to warrant such changes. In this 
action, EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's 
submittal because it will meet the maintenance plan and redesignation 
requirements. The approved maintenance plan will become a federally 
enforceable part of North Carolina's State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
for the moderate nonattainment area. In this action, EPA is also 
proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's 1990 baseline 
emissions inventory because it meets EPA's requirements regarding the 
approval on baseline emission inventories.

DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by May 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Kay 
Prince, at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
    Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents 
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 
hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345 
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
State of North Carolina, Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental 
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and 
Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.
Environmental Management Division, Mecklenburg County Department of 
Environmental Protection, 700 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North 
Carolina 28202-2236.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Prince, Regulatory Planning and 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics 
Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 345 
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is 
404/347-3555 extension 4221. Reference file NC-061-1-6815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, 
codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C), EPA 
designated Mecklenburg County of the Charlotte-Gastonia area as 
nonattainment by operation of law with respect to O<INF>3 because the 
area was designated nonattainment immediately before November 15, 1990. 
The nonattainment area was expanded to include Gaston County per 
section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) (See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991) and 57 FR 56762 
(Nov. 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR 81.318.) The area was classified as 
moderate.
    The moderate nonattainment area more recently has ambient 
monitoring data that show no violations of the O<INF>3 NAAQS, during 
the period from 1990 through 1993. Therefore, in an effort to comply 
with the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) and to ensure continued 
attainment of the NAAQS, on November 12, 1993, the State of North 
Carolina submitted an O<INF>3 maintenance plan and requested 
redesignation of the area to attainment with respect to the O<INF>3 
NAAQS. On January 24, 1994, Region 4 determined that the information 
received from the State constituted a complete redesignation request 
under the general completeness criteria of 40 CFR 51, appendix V, 
sections 2.1 and 2.2. Subsequently, on December 16, 1994, and January 
6, 1995, the State submitted additional information that refined the 
modeling and clarified the future measures needed to ensure maintenance 
of the O<INF>3 NAAQS.
    The North Carolina redesignation request for the Charlotte-Gastonia 
moderate O<INF>3 nonattainment area meets the five requirements of 
section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation to attainment. The following is 
a brief description of how the State of North Carolina has fulfilled 
each of these requirements. Because the maintenance plan is a critical 
element of the redesignation request, EPA will discuss its evaluation 
of the maintenance plan under its analysis of the redesignation 
request.

1. The Area Must Have Attained the O<INF>3 NAAQS

    The State of North Carolina's request is based on an analysis of 
quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data, which is relevant 
to the maintenance plan and to the redesignation request. Most recent 
ambient air quality monitoring data for calendar year 1990 through 
calendar year 1993 show an expected exceedance rate of less than 1.0 
per year of the O<INF>3 NAAQS in the nonattainment area (See 40 CFR 
50.9 and appendix H). The area has continued to demonstrate attainment 
to date. Because the nonattainment area has complete quality-assured 
data showing no violations of the O<INF>3 NAAQS over the most recent 
consecutive three calendar year period, the area has met the first 
component of attainment of the O<INF>3 NAAQS. The State of North 
Carolina has also met the second component of attainment of the O<INF>3 
NAAQS by committing to continue monitoring the moderate nonattainment 
area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 
and Part D of the CAA

    On April 17, 1980, August 27, 1981, October 11, 1985, November 19, 
1986, and December 19, 1986, EPA fully approved North Carolina's SIP as 
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D of the 1977 
CAA (45 FR 26038, 46 FR 43137, 50 FR 41501, 51 FR 41786, and 51 FR 
45468). The approved control strategy did not result in attainment of 
NAAQS for O<INF>3 prior to the 1990 CAA. Additionally, the amended CAA 
revised section 182(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2) and, under part 
[[Page 19198]] D, revised section 172 and added new requirements for 
all nonattainment areas. Therefore, for purposes of redesignation, to 
meet the requirement that the SIP contain all applicable requirements 
under the CAA, EPA reviewed the North Carolina SIP and ensures that it 
contains all measures due under the amended CAA prior to or at the time 
the State of North Carolina submitted its redesignation request.
    Section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that, for an area to be redesignated, 
an area must have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and 
Part D. The USEPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a 
redesignation to be approved, the State must have met all requirements 
that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time of the 
submission of a complete redesignation request. Requirements of the Act 
that come due subsequently continue to be applicable to the area at 
those later dates (see section 175A(c)) and, if the redesignation of 
the area is disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill those 
requirements.

A. Section 110 Requirements

    Although section 110 was amended by the CAA, the North Carolina SIP 
for the moderate nonattainment area meets the requirements of amended 
section 110(a)(2). A number of the requirements did not change in 
substance and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP met 
these requirements. EPA has analyzed the SIP and determined that it is 
consistent with the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2).

B. Part D Requirements

    Before the moderate nonattainment area may be redesignated to 
attainment, the State must have fulfilled the applicable requirements 
of part D. Under part D, an area's classification indicates the 
requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets 
forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas, classified as well as nonclassifiable. Subpart 2 
of part D establishes additional requirements for O<INF>3 nonattainment 
areas classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As described in the 
General Preamble for the Implementation of title I, specific 
requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart's general provisions (57 
FR 13501 (April 16, 1992)). The Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area 
is classified as moderate (See 56 FR 56694, codified at 40 CFR 81.318). 
The State of North Carolina submitted the request for redesignation of 
the moderate nonattainment area on November 12, 1993. Therefore, in 
order to be redesignated to attainment, the State of North Carolina 
must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D, 
specifically sections 172(c) and 176, and is also required to meet the 
applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D, specifically sections 
182(a) and (b).
    a. Subpart 1 of Part D. Section 172(c) sets forth general 
requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Under section 
172(b), the section 172(c) requirements are applicable as determined by 
the Administrator, but no later than 3 years after an area has been 
designated as nonattainment under the amended CAA. Furthermore, as 
noted above, some of these section 172(c) requirements are superseded 
by more specific requirements in subpart 2 of part D. In the case of 
the Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area, the State has satisfied all 
of the section 172(c) requirements necessary for the area to be 
redesignated upon the basis of the November 12, 1993, redesignation 
request.
    EPA has determined that the section 172(c)(2) reasonable further 
progress (RFP) requirement (with parallel requirements for a moderate 
ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D, due November 15, 
1993) was not applicable as the State of North Carolina submitted this 
redesignation request on November 12, 1993. Also the section 172(c)(9) 
contingency measures and additional section 172(c)(1) non-RACT 
reasonable available control measures (RACM) beyond what may already be 
required in the SIP are no longer necessary, since no earlier date was 
set for these measures and as RFP was not due until November 15, 1993.
     The section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement has been met 
by the submission of the 1990 base year inventory required under 
subpart 2 of part D, section 182(a)(1), which EPA is proposing to 
approve in this action.
    The State of North Carolina has a fully-approved NSR program 
meeting the requirements of section 182(b)(5). Therefore, the section 
172(c)(5) requirement has been met.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to 
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions, 
before they are taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the 
applicable state SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies 
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or 
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act 
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal 
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the 
conformity revisions to be submitted by states must be consistent with 
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required EPA to promulgate. 
Congress provided for the state revisions to be submitted one year 
after the date for promulgation of final EPA conformity regulations. 
When that date passed without such promulgation, EPA's General Preamble 
for the implementation of Title I informed states that its conformity 
regulations would establish a submittal date [see 57 FR 13498t 13557 
(April 16, 1992)].
    The EPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations on 
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and general conformity regulations on 
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that 
states adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in 
the SIP for areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance 
plan approved under CAA section 175A. Pursuant to Sec. 51.396 of the 
transportation conformity rule and Sec. 51.851 of the general 
conformity rule, the State of North Carolina is required to submit SIP 
revisions containing transportation and general conformity criteria and 
procedures consistent with those established in the Federal rule by 
November 25, 1994 and December 1, 1994, respectively. Because the 
deadlines for these submittals had not come due at the time of the 
submission of the redesignation request, they are not applicable 
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)(V) and, thus, do not affect 
approval of this redesignation request. The State of North Carolina 
submitted a SIP revision which contains the required conformity 
provisions on March 3, 1995.
    b. Subpart 2 of Part D--Section 182. The CAA was amended on 
November 15, 1990, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 
U.S.C. 7401-7671q. EPA was required to classify O<INF>3 nonattainment 
areas according to the severity of their problem. On November 6, 1991 
(56 FR 56694), the Charlotte-Gastonia area was designated as moderate 
O<INF>3 nonattainment. Because the Charlotte-Gastonia area is a 
moderate O<INF>3 nonattainment area, it is required to have met the 
requirements of sections 182(a), (b) and (f) of the CAA. EPA has 
analyzed the SIP and determined which requirements have been met and 
for which requirements further action is required. In the instances 
where further action is required, SIP revisions meeting those 
requirements must be fully approved in order for EPA to find that all 
the applicable requirements of the CAA [[Page 19199]] have been met. 
Thus, final approval of this redesignation is contingent upon the final 
approval of the additional SIP submittals described below.
(1) Section 182(a)(1)--Emissions Inventory
    Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA required an inventory of all actual 
emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3) to be 
submitted by November 15, 1992. On November 13, 1992, the State 
submitted an emission inventory for the Charlotte-Gastonia area. EPA is 
proposing to approve the inventory in this notice. Final approval of 
this redesignation is contingent on final approval of the emissions 
inventory.
(2) Section 182(a)(2), 182(b)(2)--Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT)
    Subsequent to the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Mecklenburg County 
was designated as not meeting the O<INF>3 NAAQS on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 
8962). The State was subsequently required to revise its O<INF>3 SIP 
for this area to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D 
of the 1977 Clean Air Act. On April 17, 1980, August 27, 1981, October 
11, 1985, November 19, 1986, and December 19, 1986, EPA fully approved 
North Carolina's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) 
and part D of the 1977 CAA (45 FR 26038, 46 FR 43137, 50 FR 41501, 51 
FR 41786, and 51 FR 45468). On December 31, 1987, EPA deemed that this 
control strategy had not resulted in the attainment of the NAAQS for 
O<INF>3 in the Charlotte-Gastonia area. Consequently, Greer C. Tidwell, 
Region 4 Regional Administrator, sent a letter to James G. Martin, 
Governor of North Carolina, on May 26, 1988. This letter, pursuant to 
section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 CAA, notified North Carolina that the 
SIP was substantially inadequate to achieve the NAAQS for O<INF>3 in 
Charlotte and called upon the State to revise the SIP.
    The 1990 CAA amended section 182(a)(2)(A), and Congress statutorily 
adopted the requirement that O<INF>3 nonattainment areas correct their 
deficient RACT rules for O<INF>3 (RACT Fix-ups). Areas designated 
nonattainment before amendment of the CAA and which retained that 
designation and were classified as marginal or above as of enactment 
are required to meet the RACT Fix-ups requirement. Under section 
182(a)(2)(A), those areas were required by May 15, 1991, to correct 
RACT regulations as required under pre-amendment guidance.<SUP>1 The 
SIP call letters interpreted that guidance and indicated corrections 
necessary for specific nonattainment areas. Charlotte was previously 
subject to RACT requirements for ozone. Therefore, this area is subject 
to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991, deadline.

    \1\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of 
the VOC RACT portions of the Post-87 policy, 52 FR 45044 (Nov. 24, 
1987); the Bluebook, ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 
Deficiencies and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 
24, 1987 Federal Register Notice'' (of which notice of availability 
was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the 
existing Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1990 CAA also amended section 182(b)(2) which required RACT on 
all major sources of VOCs for O<INF>3 nonattainment areas designated 
moderate and above (RACT Catch-ups) by November 15, 1992. The RACT 
Catch-ups provision required the State to submit a revision to the SIP 
to implement RACT on: (1) Each category of VOC sources in the area 
covered by a control technique guideline (CTG) document issued between 
the enactment of the 1990 CAA and the date of attainment (which is not 
an applicable requirement for purposes of this redesignation since the 
due date for these rules is November 15, 1994, a date after the 
submission of the redesignation request); (2) all VOC sources in the 
area covered by any CTG issued before the date of the 1990 CAA; and (3) 
all other major stationary sources of VOCs that are located in the 
area.
    North Carolina submitted SIP revisions to correct deficiencies in 
the VOC regulations to EPA on September 21, 1989, January 14, 1991, and 
April 29, 1991, all prior to the May 15, 1991, deadline. Additionally, 
revisions to the Mecklenburg County local program regulations were 
submitted on August 13, 1991, and July 19, 1993. A Federal Register 
notice approving these SIP revisions was published on June 23, 1994 (59 
FR 32365). The approval became effective on August 22, 1994.
    North Carolina failed to meet the November 15, 1992, deadline date 
for RACT catch-ups and EPA notified the State on January 15, 1993, that 
a finding of failure to submit had been made. This finding of failure 
to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month time clock for mandatory 
application of sanctions under section 179(a); (2) the Administrator's 
discretionary authority to impose sanctions under section 110(m); and 
(3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of the Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) VOC regulations for this area as required by 
section 110(c)(1).
    The 18-month period prior to application of mandatory sanctions 
ended on July 15, 1994. North Carolina submitted SIP revisions to EPA 
on January 7, 1994, prior to the July 15, 1994, deadline. Because the 
revisions addressed all RACT Catch-up requirements and were found to 
contain all required administrative and technical components, the 18-
month time clock for mandatory application of sanctions under section 
179(a) was stopped. Action to give final approval of the North Carolina 
RACT Catch-up provisions will be taken at the time or prior to final 
approval of this redesignation.
(3) Section 182(a)(3)--Emissions Statements
    Section 182(a)(3) of the CAA required that the SIP be revised by 
November 15, 1992, to require stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen 
(NO<INF>X) and VOCs to provide the State with a statement showing 
actual emission each year. North Carolina failed to meet the November 
15, 1992, deadline date for Emissions Statements and EPA notified the 
State on January 15, 1993, that a finding of failure to submit had been 
made. This finding of failure to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month 
time clock for mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a); 
(2) the Administrator's discretionary authority to impose sanctions 
under section 110(m); and (3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of 
the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) VOC regulations for this area as 
required by section 110(c)(1).
    The 18-month period prior to application of mandatory sanctions 
ended on July 15, 1994. North Carolina submitted SIP revisions to EPA 
on December 17, 1993, prior to the July 15, 1994, deadline. Because the 
revision addressed all the Emission Statement requirements and was 
found to contain all required administrative and technical components, 
the 18-month time clock for mandatory application of sanctions under 
section 179(a) was stopped. Final action regarding the North Carolina 
Emission Statement regulation will be taken at the time or prior to 
final approval of this redesignation. Approval of this redesignation is 
contingent upon approval of the emission statement regulation.
(4) Section 182(b)(1)--15% Progress Plans
    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA required states to submit a revision 
to the SIP by [[Page 19200]] November 15, 1993, to provide for VOC 
emission reductions by November 15, 1996, of at least 15% from baseline 
emissions accounting for any growth in emissions after the date of 
enactment of the CAA. The State failed to submit the required revisions 
and as a result, on January 28, 1994, EPA issued a finding letter 
notifying North Carolina of a finding of failure to submit. This 
finding of failure to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month time clock for 
mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a); (2) the 
Administrator's discretionary authority to impose sanctions under 
section 110(m); and (3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of the 
FIP 15% regulations for this area as required by section 110(c)(1). 
However, the letter acknowledges the submittal of this redesignation 
request to attainment and stated that if the redesignation request to 
attainment is approved then requirements for a 15% plan SIP will be 
unnecessary for the Charlotte-Gastonia area. Therefore, upon approval 
of this redesignation request, the sanctions clock will stop. As the 
requirement to submit a 15% plan did not come due until November 15, 
1993, the 15% plan requirement is not an applicable requirement for 
purposes of the evaluation of this redesignation request.
(5) Section 182(b)(3)--Stage II
    Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA required moderate areas to implement 
Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems unless and until EPA 
promulgated onboard vapor recovery (OBVR) regulations. On January 24, 
1994, EPA promulgated the OBVR rule, and, as section 202(a)(b) of the 
CAA provides that once the rule is promulgated, moderate areas are no 
longer required to implement Stage II. Thus, the Stage II vapor 
recovery requirement of section 182(b)(3) is no longer an applicable 
requirement.
(6) Section 182(b)(4)--Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
    The CAA required all moderate and above areas to revise the SIP to 
include provisions necessary to provide for a vehicle inspection and 
maintenance program. The State failed to submit the required revisions 
and as a result, on January 15, 1993, EPA issued a finding letter 
notifying North Carolina of a finding of failure to submit. This 
finding of failure to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month time clock for 
mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a); (2) the 
Administrator's discretionary authority to impose sanctions under 
section 110(m); and (3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of the 
FIP I/M regulations for this area as required by section 110(c)(1). 
However, on July 19, 1993, the State submitted revisions to their I/M 
regulations, prior to the July 15, 1994, deadline. Because the revision 
addressed all the I/M requirements and was found to contain all 
required administrative and technical components, the 18-month time 
clock for mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a) was 
stopped. Final action regarding the North Carolina I/M regulation will 
be taken at the time or prior to final approval of this redesignation. 
The approval of this redesignation is contingent upon final approval of 
the I/M regulation.
(7) Section 182(b)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
    The CAA required all classified nonattainment areas to meet several 
requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that 
increased emissions of VOCs compounds will not result from any new or 
major source modifications and a general offset rule. The State 
submitted a NSR rule on January 7, 1994, to incorporate VOC and oxides 
of nitrogen (NO<INF>X) permit review requirements for new and modified 
sources in North Carolina's O<INF>3 nonattainment areas. The revised 
permit requirements meet new offset ratios and additional provisions 
for moderate O<INF>3 nonattainment areas. EPA approved this rule on 
October 31, 1994 (59 FR 54388), giving North Carolina a fully approved 
NSR program. (EPA notes that under the policy announced in the 
memorandum, ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' dated October 14, 1994, 
from Mary D. Nichols to Air Division Directors I-X, approval of the NSR 
submittal is not necessarily required for approval of a redesignation.)
(8) Section 182(f)--Oxides of Nitrogen (NO<INF>X) Requirements
    Section 182(f) of the CAA requires states with areas designated 
nonattainment for O<INF>3 and classified as moderate and above to 
impose the same control requirements for major stationary sources of 
NO<INF>X as apply to major stationary sources of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). These control requirements, NO<INF>X RACT and 
NO<INF>X NSR, were to be submitted to EPA in a SIP revision by November 
15, 1992. EPA adopted a policy pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA 
to conditionally approve NO<INF>X RACT SIPs which committed to provide 
EPA with specific enforceable measures within one year of the date of 
approval of the commitment. EPA's committal SIP policy was challenged 
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Browner--in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a full 
Opinion, dated May 6, 1994, the Court found that EPA's conditional 
approval interpretation exceeded the EPA's statutory authority, but 
concluded that ``EPA properly extended'' to November 15, 1993, the 
deadline for submittal of fully enforceable NO<INF>X RACT SIPs. As a 
result of this court case, the deadline to submit NO<INF>X RACT rules 
was November 15, 1993. Therefore, because that date is after the State 
submitted the redesignation request, NO<INF>X RACT is not an applicable 
requirement for this redesignation request.

3. The Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the 
CAA

    Based on the approval of provisions under the pre-amended CAA and 
EPA's prior approval of SIP revisions under the amended CAA, EPA has 
determined that North Carolina will have a fully approved O<INF>3 SIP 
under section 110(k) for the moderate nonattainment area if EPA 
approves SIP submissions regarding the emissions inventory, emission 
statements, VOC RACT catch-ups, and I/M. Final action will be taken 
prior to or at the same time as final approval of this redesignation.

4. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be Permanent and Enforceable

    Several control measures have come into place since the Charlotte-
Gastonia nonattainment area violated the O<INF>3 NAAQS. Of these 
control measures, the reduction of fuel volatility from 10.6 psi in 
1987 to less than 9.0 psi in 1990, and finally to less than 7.8 psi 
beginning with the summer of 1992, as measured by the Reid Vapor 
Pressure (RVP), and fleet turnover due to the Federal Motor Vehicle 
Control Program (FMVCP) produced the most significant decreases in VOC 
emissions. The reduction in VOC emissions due to the mobile source 
regulations from 1987 to 1990 is 26.01 tons per day (29.63%). The VOC 
emissions in the base year are not artificially low due to a depressed 
economy.

5. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 
Section 175A of the CAA

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS 
for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation 
to attainment. Eight years [[Page 19201]] after the redesignation, the 
state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates 
attainment for the ten years following the initial ten-year period. To 
provide for the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance 
plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for 
implementation, adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality 
problems.
    In this notice, EPA is proposing approval of the State of North 
Carolina's maintenance plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment 
area because EPA finds that North Carolina's submittal meets the 
requirements of section 175A.

A. Emissions Inventory--Base Year Inventory

    On November 13, 1992, the State of North Carolina submitted 
comprehensive inventories of VOC, NO<INF>X , and CO emissions from the 
Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area. The inventory included biogenic, 
area, stationary, and mobile sources for 1990.
    The State of North Carolina submittal contains the detailed 
inventory data and summaries by county and source category. Finally, 
this inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. A summary 
of the base year inventory is included in this notice. This notice 
proposes approval of the base year inventory for the Charlotte-Gastonia 
area.

 1990 Charlotte/Gastonia Typical Summer Day Emissions Tons Per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                      NO<INF>X       VOC       CO   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.....................................    31.25     33.99     35.27 
Area......................................     4.92     67.59     25.00 
Nonroad...................................    15.52     19.38    138.45 
Biogenic..................................     2.78     54.41      0.0  
Mobile....................................    61.64     50.81    371.26 
                                           -----------------------------
  Total...................................   116.11    226.18    569.98 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance--Urban Airshed Modeling

a. Proposed Control Strategy
    The plan must demonstrate maintenance for at least 10 years. The 
North Carolina plan demonstrates maintenance out to the year 2005 
through the use of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM). The revised modeling 
runs, submitted in the December 16, 1994 supplement, were completed for 
three meteorological episodes during which the area experienced 
exceedances of the ozone standard. These runs corrected and completed 
the modeling submitted in the original November 1993 submittal pursuant 
to EPA comments. Base and future case modeling was done according to 
guidelines presented in the EPA document ``Guideline for Regulatory 
Application of the Urban Airshed Model'' in performing the modeling 
analysis. The future case modeling includes the interim year 1999 and 
the 10 year maintenance year of 2005. This modeling analysis did not 
assume any benefit from the NSR program.
    Modeling for all three episodes indicated that to predict all grid 
cells below .124 parts per million (ppm) for both 1999 and 2005, 
additional controls would be needed. The analysis of control options 
showed that a further reduction of VOC emissions of 25 percent 
demonstrated a 1 part per billion (ppb) reduction of ozone and a 
further reduction of VOC emissions of 50 percent demonstrated a 2 ppb 
or less reduction in ozone. By contrast, a 35 percent further reduction 
of NO<INF>X resulted in a 10-12 ppb reduction in ozone. Therefore, 
North Carolina concluded that the NO<INF>X controls will be more 
effective in the maintenance of the standard in the Charlotte/Gastonia 
area, and, hence, the selected strategy primarily consists of controls 
of NO<INF>X emissions. The revised modeling and the identified control 
measures will be the subject of a public hearing on April 19, 1995. The 
selected control strategy includes the following measures:

<bullet> Reformulated Gasoline to meet the Federal Phase I and Phase 
II standards to begin in 1999 in Mecklenburg, Gaston, Union, 
Cabarrus, Lincoln, Rowan, and Iredell Counties;
<bullet> Clean Fuel Fleet Program, including the schedule for 
implementation as specified in the CAA for areas classified serious 
and above, in the same seven counties previously listed;
<bullet> Burning bans in the seven counties for the months of June, 
July, and August;
<bullet> Control of NO<INF>X for the Transcontinental Natural Gas 
Pumping Station in Iredell County for the months of June, July, and 
August; and
<bullet>Additional 10 percent control beyond the control being 
applied to meet title IV NO<INF>X requirements on Duke Power's Allen 
and Riverbend facilities in Gaston County for the months of June, 
July, and August.

    The State will also take comment at the public hearing on the 
feasibility of substituting an enhanced I/M program for the 
reformulated gasoline measure. The modeling results indicate that such 
substitution would show maintenance of the standard. The strategy 
represents a combination of mobile and stationary source controls that 
provide a 25 ton per day reduction in NO<INF>x emissions resulting in a 
2-6 ppb reduction in ozone, depending upon the meteorological episode. 
The modeling for all three meteorological episodes for both 1999 and 
2005 with the above described control strategy showed attainment of the 
O<INF>3 standard. The State has committed to develop regulations 
necessary to implement a control strategy that will demonstrate 
maintenance of the ozone standard through 2005, and submit those 
regulations to EPA for approval into the maintenance plan.

b. Request for Comments

    Consistent with the notice of public hearing for the redesignation 
of the Charlotte-Gastonia ozone nonattainment area, the State will take 
comment on the aforementioned control strategy, that strategy with 
enhanced I/M as a substitute for the reformulate gasoline measure, and 
any combination of those control measures. EPA invites comment on the 
following scenarios:

    (a) Adoption and implementation in 1999 of the five measures as 
detailed above;
    (b) Adoption and implementation in 1999 of the five measures as 
detailed above with enhanced I/M substituted for the reformulated 
gasoline program;
    (c) Adoption and implementation in 1999 of the aforementioned 
controls on the Transcontinental Natural Gas Pumping Station in 
Iredell County and the additional 10 percent control beyond the 
title IV requirements on Duke Power's Allen and Riverbend facilities 
in Gaston County; or
    (d) Approval of the request as demonstrating maintenance with no 
additional VOC or NO<INF>x controls.

    Scenarios a and b both involve a combination of measures that 
results in the modeling showing attainment of the standard in all grid 
cells. Scenario a, however, involves the inclusion by the State in the 
maintenance plan of regulations to require the sale of reformulated 
gasoline beginning in 1999. EPA specifically requests comment regarding 
the issue of whether such regulations may be adopted or enforced in 
maintenance or attainment areas by a state in light of the preemption 
provisions of section 211(c)(4) of the CAA.
    Scenarios c and d, on the other hand, do not provide for the 
adoption of control measures that result in the modeling showing 
attainment of the standard in all grid cells. EPA requests comment as 
to whether, in light of the reasons described below, a maintenance plan 
based on either scenario c or d should be approved for the Charlotte 
area. Under scenario d, no additional controls approved for 
maintenance, the modeling shows 3 to 4 grid cells out of 625 over the 
standard. The range of predicted values above .124 ppm for this 
scenario is .125 ppm to .129 ppm. [[Page 19202]] 
    Although the ozone modeling guidance generally requires that 
modeling results show attainment of the standard in all grid cells, it 
does allow alternative methods for demonstrating attainment on a case 
by case basis. EPA believes that the modeling demonstration submitted 
by the State of North Carolina is sufficiently conservative so that it 
is likely that the O<INF>3 NAAQS will continue to be maintained in the 
Charlotte area without the State having to invoke costly additional 
measures adopted in the maintenance standard. That belief is based on 
the combination of the following factors:

    (1) North Carolina has five years of air quality data showing 
attainment of the standard.
    (2) The maintenance plan contains pre-adopted measures and a 
violation would trigger reduction in emissions by the following 
ozone season.
    (3) The ozone standard is a statistically based NAAQS that 
allows one exceedance per year.
    (4) North Carolina has done extensive modeling to gain an 
understanding of the creation of ozone in the Charlotte area and has 
generally made conservative assumptions in selecting modeling 
inputs.
    (5) The uncertainties in the biogenic emission inventory and 
other modeling inputs are well within the range of the 2-3 ppb 
needed to reach the .124 ppm in all grid cells.
    (6) The modeling did not account for lower VOC, NO<INF>X and 
O<INF>3 boundary conditions expected when SIP attainment control 
programs have been implemented in many areas throughout the United 
States.

Therefore, EPA believes the area is eligible for redesignation with 
the existing control strategy and the contingency plan discussed 
below.
    The emissions budget for conformity is contingent upon the 
control strategy selected pursuant to the April 19, 1995, public 
hearing. That budget will be published in any notice that takes 
final action approving this redesignation request.

C. Verification of Continued Attainment

    Continued attainment of the O<INF>3 NAAQS in the nonattainment area 
depends, in part, on the State of North Carolina's efforts toward 
tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance 
period. The primary trigger of the contingency plan will be a violation 
of the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The trigger date will be 
the date that the State certifies to EPA that the data is quality 
assured, which will occur no later than 30 days after the recorded 
violation. The secondary trigger of the contingency plan will be an 
exceedance of the ozone standard that would indicate a violation could 
be imminent. This trigger will be activated within 30 days of the State 
finding the exceedance.
    Once either the primary or the secondary trigger is activated, the 
State Air Quality Section will commence analysis, including updated 
modeling as necessary, to determine what control measures will be 
required to bring the area back into attainment. By May 1 of the year 
following the ozone season in which the primary trigger has been 
activated, the State will complete the analysis and adopt stationary 
control measures indicated by the analysis, using the emergency rule 
process as necessary. The time frame for adopting measures other than 
for stationary sources will be based on the time frames in section 
181(b) of the CAA. Where only the secondary trigger has been activated, 
the State will complete the analysis and begin the regulatory adoption 
process for any measures that are needed by May 1 of the following 
year.

D. Contingency Plan

    The level of VOC and NO<INF>X emissions in the nonattainment areas 
will largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the 
O<INF>3 NAAQS in the future. Despite the State's best efforts to 
demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air 
pollutant concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS. Therefore, 
the State of North Carolina has provided contingency measures with a 
schedule for implementation in the event of a future O<INF>3 air 
quality problem. The actual measures will be determined from the 
analysis process described in the Verification of Continued Attainment 
portion of this notice. The measures analyzed will include RACT or 
greater level control for NO<INF>X and VOC sources, Stage II vapor 
control for gasoline dispensing facilities, enhancements to the I/M 
program, transportation control measures, and any other appropriate 
measures. EPA finds that the contingency plan provided in the State of 
North Carolina's submittal meets the requirements of section 175A(d) of 
the CAA.

E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions

    In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of North 
Carolina has agreed to submit a revised maintenance SIP eight years 
after the nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment. Such 
revised SIP will provide for maintenance for an additional ten years.

6. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes approval of the State of North Carolina's request to 
redesignate to attainment the Charlotte-Gastonia O<INF>3 nonattainment 
area and maintenance plan contingent upon a full and final approval of 
the outstanding requirements discussed above (emission statement, RACT 
catch-ups, emission inventory and I/M). EPA also proposes to approve 
the 1990 baseyear inventory for the Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment 
area.
    The OMB has exempted these actions from review under Executive 
Order 12866.
    Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to 
any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state 
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific 
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to 
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities. 
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The 
Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request 
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation 
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 5, 1995.
Joe R. Franzmathes,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-9248 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P