80 FR 44873 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 144 (July 28, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 144 (July 28, 2015)
| Page Range | 44873-44882 | |
| FR Document | 2015-18345 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44873-44882] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-18345] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275; FRL-9931-28-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking three separate final actions related to a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These final actions are for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'' or ``Area''). The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties, North Carolina; and a portion of York County, South Carolina. Regarding South Carolina's request to redesignate the South Carolina portion of the Area and its maintenance plan for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address this in a separate action. In the three actions for the North Carolina bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA determines that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); approves and incorporates the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8- hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the North Carolina portion of this Area into the SIP; and redesignates the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2026 sub- area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity. DATES: This rule will be effective August 27, 2015. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly [[Page 44874]] available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, 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. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background for Final Actions On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified as a marginal nonattainment area. On April 16, 2015, NC DAQ requested that EPA redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on May 21, 2015, EPA proposed to determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and incorporate into the North Carolina SIP the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the North Carolina potion of the bi-state Charlotte Area; and to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 29250. In that document, EPA also notified the public of the status of the Agency's adequacy determination for the subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The details of North Carolina's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPR. See 80 FR 29250 (May 21, 2015). II. EPA's Responses to Comments EPA received two sets of comments on its May 21, 2015, proposed rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from the Sierra Club (``Commenter'') and comments supporting the proposed actions from one member of the general public.\1\ Full sets of these comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket number EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. A summary of the adverse comments and EPA's responses are provided below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The supporting comments state that the 2012-2014 three-year average ``support[s] attainment'' and that the ``[p]rojected NOX shows decreases in all categories over the next decade, so even if the predicted large projected decreases in on- road NOX are not met the area should still see an overall decrease in ozone levels.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that North Carolina experienced ``abnormally cool weather'' during the summers of 2013 and 2014 ``that reduced the likelihood of ozone formation'' and that the design values for the Area would have exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ``but for the uncharacteristically cool summers in 2013 and 2014.'' Therefore, the Commenter believes that EPA ``should decline to issue the requested attainment determination for the Area.'' Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that weather should impact EPA's determination that the area has attained the NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). That factual determination is based solely on air quality monitoring data and on the Agency's evaluation of that data's compliance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. Therefore, weather conditions, including any alleged resulting changes in energy demand, are irrelevant in determining whether an area is factually attaining a NAAQS. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is determined by calculating the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an ozone monitor, also known as a monitor's design value. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) at each monitor within the area, then the area is attaining the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement for evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS attainment is met at each monitor when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than or equal to 90 percent and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as defined in appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring data must also be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). EPA's analysis of monitoring data in the bi-state Charlotte Area supports its determination under section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The design values for each monitor in the Area for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the data from these monitors during this time period meet the data quality and completeness requirements and are recorded in AQS. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8- hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix P requirements. Comment 2: The Commenter believes that EPA should disapprove North Carolina's redesignation request because ``neither EPA nor DAQ has demonstrated that the recording of a design value below 75 ppb [parts per billion] for the years 2012-2014 is `due to permanent and enforceable reductions' '' as required by CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to the Commenter, EPA and NC DAQ cannot make this demonstration because ``but for the uncharacteristically cool summers in 2013 and 2014, a design value above 75 ppb would have been recorded.'' The Commenter also contends that the ``uncharacteristically cool summers in 2013 and 2014'' resulted in ``unusually low monthly total consumption of electric power'' and ``starkly lower capacity factors'' from Duke Energy's GG Allen and Marshall power plants during those summers and notes that ``operation of these plants significantly impacts total NOX emissions and, thus, overall ozone levels.'' \2\ Despite the alleged decrease in [[Page 44875]] the capacity factors at these two EGUs, the Commenter states that ``the plants still tend to run at a significantly higher capacity factor on peak ozone days.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The GG Allen plant is located in the portion of Gaston County that is included in the nonattainment area. The Marshall plant is located in Catawba County and is not located within the nonattainment area. During the nonattainment designation in 2012, sources in Catawba County were not found to contribute to violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte Area. See http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/R4_Charlotte_TSD_Final.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response 2: Weather effects are not controllable, and weather is just one of the parameters that allow for ozone formation. EPA does not disagree with the Commenter that ozone season temperatures and precipitation are two readily available parameters that can be used to evaluate the potential weather impacts on ozone concentrations. Ozone is more readily formed on warm, sunny days when the air is stagnant. Conversely, ozone production is generally more limited when it is cloudy, cool, rainy, or windy.\3\ However, although EPA agrees that the Area experienced cooler and wetter weather during some of the relevant time period, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the improvement in air quality in the bi-state Charlotte Area was solely the result of ``aberrant weather.'' EPA has examined the weather data presented by the Commenter, and has determined, after conducting its own analysis of the meteorological conditions and the emission reductions occurring during the relevant time period, that the improvement in air quality in the Area was due to those emissions reductions in accordance with CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted above, Federal regulations require EPA to use a three-year average to determine attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The averaging of values over three years serves to account for some variation in meteorology from year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013 was cooler than the long-term average temperature and may have been less conducive to the formation of ozone, the Agency also notes that the weather conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a season included in the three-year average forming the basis for the attainment determination) were warmer than the long-term average and were more conducive to ozone formation. See Table 1, below.\4\ Furthermore, temperatures in the summer of 2014 are close to the long-term average temperatures. Given the higher than long-term average 2012 temperatures and the near normal \5\ temperatures in 2014, EPA does not agree with the Commenter's conclusion that meteorological conditions during the relevant time period were so unusual or abnormal such that those conditions alone ``provide sufficient justification for EPA to reject DAQ's request for the redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to attainment.'' To the contrary, the certified data show that the Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 2012 to 2014, a time period with varying meteorological conditions. Preliminary monitoring data from 2015 also indicates that the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ EPA's use of the phrase ``long-term average'' refers to the 74-year averages identified in Table 1. \5\ EPA's analysis is based on weather data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (see below). NOAA defines ``normal'' as the ``long-term average value of a meteorological element for a certain area. For example, `temperatures are normal for this time of year[.]' Usually averaged over 30 years.'' See http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm. \6\ This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is available under the Designated Area field in Table 5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1 provides temperature and precipitation data for the bi- state Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons (May 1 -September 30) from 2010-2014 obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA NCEI).\7\ Specifically, Table 1 provides overall average and average maximum ozone season temperatures and total ozone season precipitation; deviation from the 74-year average ozone season temperature and precipitation (termed the ``anomaly''); and the rank of the given year on the 74-year (1940-2014) recorded history list. A rank of 74 is given to the hottest or wettest year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Ozone is monitored from April 1 through October 31 in the bi-state Charlotte Area. \8\ EPA obtained this weather data from the NOAA NCEI Web site at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/. Table 1--Charlotte, North Carolina Temperature and Precipitation Ozone Season (May-September) Data \8\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average May- Average maximum September May-September Precipitation temperature temperature [inches] (anomaly Year [degrees F] Rank [since 1940, [degrees F] Rank [since 1940, from the long- Rank [since 1940, (anomaly from the scale of 1-74] (anomaly from the scale of 1-74] term average scale of 1-74] long-term average long-term average [18.17 inches]) [74.7 degrees F]) [84.9 degrees F]) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2010.................................. 78.0 (+3.3) 73 88.8 (+3.9) 73 17.67 (-0.5) 36 2011.................................. 76.2 (+1.5) 64 87.3 (+2.4) 67 22.1 (+3.93) 58 2012.................................. 75.3 (+0.6) 52 86.3 (+1.4) 54 18.87 (+0.7) 44 2013.................................. 73.9 (-0.8) 21 83.3 (-1.6) 12 22.63 (+4.46) 61 2014.................................. 74.5 (-0.2) 32 84.5 (-0.4) 32 19.01 (+0.84) 46 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The data in Table 1 show that both average temperature and precipitation varied significantly from 2010-2014. The rank and anomaly data in Table 1 show that average ozone season temperatures and precipitation were slightly above normal for the year 2012, temperatures were below normal and precipitation was above normal in 2013, and temperatures were near normal and precipitation slightly above normal in 2014. The year 2012 was one of the hottest in the recent past across the Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat wave occurred in late June through early July 2012, which resulted in high ozone levels measured across the Southeast. Based upon the meteorology analysis, 2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and 2014 was near normal when compared to the long-term average. Therefore, the 2012-2014 period does not appear to be abnormally conducive to low ozone formation and does not undermine EPA's analysis that the attainment in the bi-state Charlotte Area was due to permanent and enforceable reductions. EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone data and meteorology for May 2015, which is the beginning of the ozone season in the Area. The Commenter provided data to show that the average maximum temperature in May 2015 is [[Page 44876]] higher than the average maximum May temperature over the previous ten years. EPA agrees that the average maximum temperature in May 2015 was above average; in fact, the average maximum temperature was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 4.2 degrees above average and it ranks 67 out of 75 years of recorded data in the bi-state Charlotte Area. However, even with this abnormally warm month, the May 2015 preliminary ozone data indicates that no exceedances of the 75 ppb ozone standard occurred and that the highest 8-hour average was 72 ppb. This data also indicates that although meteorological conditions were conducive to ozone formation, emissions in the Area were low enough not to support the formation of ozone above a level that would exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary ozone season data available through June 28, 2015, indicate that the 4th Highest Maximum Daily 8- hour Average value for the bi-state Charlotte area monitors from March 1, 2015 through June 28, 2015 is 72 ppb.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is available under the Designated Area field in Table 5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commenter's focus on meteorological conditions is inconsistent with EPA's analysis of the permanent and enforceable emission reductions that did occur in the area during the relevant time period. Consistent with EPA's longstanding practice and policy, a comparison of nonattainment period emissions with attainment period emissions is a relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. EPA evaluated the ozone precursor emissions data in the Area and found that there were significant reductions in these emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a nonattainment year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The emissions data show that from 2011 to 2014, non-road NOX and VOC emissions decreased, point source NOX emissions decreased, and on-road mobile NOX and VOC emissions have decreased substantially. During this time period, mobile source NOX emissions decreased by approximately 54.5 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 79 percent of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC emissions decreased by approximately 26.5 tpsd (equating to 100 percent of the total VOC emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every change in emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment year to be permanent and enforceable. Rather, the CAA requires that improvement in air quality necessary for the area to attain the relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and enforceable emission reductions in emissions. Table 2--NOX Emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area [Tons per summer day] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2011............................ 47.17 6.68 112.13 28.75 194.73 2014............................ 32.38 11.40 60.15 26.26 130.18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3--VOC Emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area [Tons per summer day] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2011............................ 11.37 46.69 55.35 24.4 137.81 2014............................ 12.03 47.88 34.32 18.89 113.12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The emissions reductions identified in Tables 2 and 3, above, are attributable to numerous measures implemented during this period, including the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures discussed in the NPR such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, the large non-road diesel engines rule,\10\ heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards,\11\ medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards,\12\ non-road spark-ignitions and recreational standards,\13\ and the national program for GHG emissions and fuel economy standards. These mobile source measures have resulted in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 standards began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet, these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX emissions. EPA expects that these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 percent by 2030, translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by 2030.\14\ Implementation of the heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards rule also began in 2004. EPA projects a 2.6 million ton reduction in NOX emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. \11\ Implementation of this rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses. \12\ When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20 percent. \13\ When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80 percent reduction in NOX by 2020. \14\ EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December 1999), available at: http://www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf. \15\ 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source emissions contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and procedures that account for the Federal mobile source measures identified above, fleet turnover, and increased population.16 17 [[Page 44877]] Because the model does not include any additional mobile source measures, the large reductions in mobile source emissions quantified in the Area between 2011 and 2014 are the result of the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures listed above and discussed in the NPR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ North Carolina used EPA's MOVES2014 model to calculate on- road emissions factors and EPA's NONROAD 2008a model to quantify off-road emissions. \17\ North Carolina used the interagency consultation process required by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity Rule) which requires EPA, the United States Department of Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of transportation, and State and local air quality agencies to work together to develop applicable implementation plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an aggregate of the vehicle activity (generated from the travel demand model) on individual roadways multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor from MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included in the travel demand model, such as population, were reviewed through the interagency consultation process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the Commenter's discussion of capacity factors at the GG Allen and Marshall power plants and cooling degree days, the Commenter does not attempt to quantify how any decreases in these parameters translate to decreases in NOX emissions or ozone concentrations; therefore, it is unclear how the changes in capacity factors and cooling degree days support the Commenter's position that EPA cannot redesignate the bi-state Charlotte Area. The data in Table 2, above, demonstrates that the decreases in mobile source NOX emissions from 2011-2014 are much greater than the decreases in point-source NOX emissions. In addition, EPA does not believe that the cooling degree and capacity factor data supports the conclusions reached by the Commenter. The Commenter presents data showing cooling degree days for North Carolina for the past ten years and concludes that the cooler summers in 2013 and 2014 have resulted in a lower demand for air conditioning and thus a lower demand for electric power. EPA acknowledges that the number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 and the total consumption of electricity in North Carolina were lower in 2013 and 2014 than during 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, the Commenter ignores the fact that the numbers of cooling degree days in 2010, 2011, and 2012 were significantly above average. In fact, the number of cooling degree days in 2010 ranks the highest in the 120 years of data available for North Carolina and 2011 ranks the third highest out of those 120 years. In contrast, the number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 were close to the 120-year average--2013 is slightly below the average, but the 2014 cooling degree days are actually above the long- term 120-year average. Also, even within the ten years of data presented by the Commenter, the number of cooling degree days in 2014 is on par with the number of cooling degree days in 2006, 2008, and 2009. EPA therefore does not agree with the Commenter that the number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 undermines the Agency's conclusion about the causes of the attainment air quality in the Area. EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's characterization of the capacity factor and electric power usage data presented in its comments. For example, the Commenter provides a figure showing total consumption of electric power in North Carolina for each ozone season for only the last five years (2010 through 2014) and concludes that the electric power consumption in 2013 and 2014 was ``unusually low'' using this limited time period as its reference point. However, as demonstrated by the meteorological analysis provided in Table 1 of this final action, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are warmer than long-term average years. Therefore, it is not appropriate to conclude that levels in 2013 and 2014 were ``unusually low'' without evaluating consumption data from a larger time period. EPA also notes that the Commenter's conclusion that ozone season capacity factors in 2012-2014 at the GG Allen and Marshall power plants are ``starkly lower than preceding years'' that ``can be attributed, in part to the aberrantly mild summer weather and the resulting decrease in energy demand'' ignores the fact that 2012 had warmer than average summer temperatures and still had capacity factors at those same units that were lower than or comparable to 2014. The Commenter's assertion is also based on the limited 2010- 2014 time period that is not representative of long-term meteorological conditions. Therefore, the Commenter has not established a causal connection between differences in ozone season meteorological conditions and capacity factors for these EGUs. For the reasons discussed above, EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the meteorological data from the relevant time period undermines its analysis and conclusion that the improvement in air quality in the bi-State Charlotte Area is reasonably attributable to the permanent and enforceable emission reductions identified by the State and EPA. Comment 3: The Commenter states that ``as EPA has acknowledged, global climate change likely will lead to significantly higher summer temperatures in the years to come and hotter summers, in turn, will lead to increased ozone formation.'' The Commenter therefore believes that it is ``irrational'' for EPA to approve the redesignation request based on data from ``two outlying uncharacteristically cool summers'' that ``Charlotte may not experience again.'' Response 3: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious environmental issue; however, EPA does not agree that the redesignation and maintenance plan at issue are flawed because temperatures may increase in the future. Given the potential wide-ranging impacts of climate change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate adaptation implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to our programs (including how climate change might affect attainment of national ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority actions to minimize these vulnerabilities. With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and meteorologically-dependent emissions. However, EPA has not yet made those changes. The broad range of potential future climate outcomes and variability of projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's ability, at this time, to translate a general expectation that average ozone levels will increase with rising temperatures to specific ``actionable'' SIP policies at any specific location, including the bi- state Charlotte Area. Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely upon the existing air quality modeling tools and guidance and applicable CAA provisions to ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not violate the NAAQS (as a result of climate change or any other cause). As noted above, EPA is currently unable to fully account for the potential impact of climate change on ozone concentrations in the Area. However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the large emissions reductions of NOX and VOC projected for the Area over the next 10 years would be outpaced by the potential increase in ozone concentrations caused by climate change over the same time period. Comment 4: The Commenter contends that EPA should not approve the State's maintenance plan because ``DAQ selected 2014 as the base year for the purpose of its maintenance demonstration, which year is not representative of air quality conditions given aberrant weather, and, thus, inappropriately skewed the analysis of future air quality toward an [[Page 44878]] underestimation of future emissions.'' According to the Commenter, EPA should ``require DAQ to reevaluate the Area's ability to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS using emissions data from a year (or years) in which summer weather conditions were more typical.'' Response 4: As discussed in Response 2, EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion that the weather in summer 2014 was ``unusually cool'' when the conditions from that year are viewed in comparison to a larger data set, and therefore does not agree that NC DAQ selected an inappropriate base year for a maintenance demonstration. Furthermore, it is unclear how the Commenter concludes that EPA should disapprove the maintenance plan even if the Agency accepted the Commenter's assertion that the weather in 2014 was ``aberrant.'' The maintenance demonstration compares base year emissions to future year emissions. If total future year emissions are above total base year emissions, maintenance is not demonstrated. For some source categories, future year emissions are projected using base year emissions; however, for other source categories, future year emissions projections are independent of base year emissions. Projected emissions for source categories that rely on base year emissions will be proportional to base year emissions in the same degree regardless of the base year emissions used. It is therefore more likely that an area will fail to demonstrate maintenance using a comparison of total emissions if the baseline is artificially low. In addition, while emissions from some source categories may vary as a result of weather conditions, the overall NOX and VOC emissions released from year to year across source categories is generally not weather-dependent; therefore, weather does not play a determinative role in the base year to future year emissions comparison. Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA must disapprove the State's maintenance plan because ``it fails to specify emissions reductions that are permanent and enforceable. The proposed plan identifies various state and Federal requirements that may apply to the major stationary sources of air pollution located in and in close proximity to the Charlotte Area, however, it fails to present any assurance that such requirements will result in any reduction in emissions.'' In support, the Commenter references three requirements-- North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act and EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As to these three measures, the Commenter states its belief that they are not permanent and enforceable because they are cap and trade programs that could allow for increased NOX emissions at Duke Energy's GG Allen and Marshall power plants. The Commenter further states that ``DAQ should impose enforceable limits on NOX emissions from all EGUs [electricity generating units] that are based on available and demonstrated control technology.'' Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. Consistent with EPA guidance, the State's maintenance plan identifies a number of permanent and enforceable requirements, including measures that regulate area, on-road, and off-road sources, and discusses the emissions reductions associated with each measure.\18\ See 80 FR 29250. In discussing the emissions reductions and status of these measures, the State has provided assurance that these requirements will result in emissions reductions.\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ See, e.g., Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Directors entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (September 4, 1992). \19\ See Response 2, above, for further discussion of these permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's belief that emission reductions associated with the CSA, CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent and enforceable simply because the underlying program is an emissions trading program. Cap-and-trade programs provide economic incentives for early reductions in emissions and encourage sources to install controls earlier than required for compliance with future caps on emissions. The flexibility under a cap-and-trade system is not about whether to reduce emissions; rather, it is about how to reduce them at the lowest possible cost. Trading programs require total mass emission reductions by establishing mandatory caps on total emissions to permanently reduce the total mass emissions allowed by sources subject to the programs, validated through rigorous continuous emission monitoring and reporting regimens. The emission caps and associated controls are enforced through the associated SIP rules or federal implementation plans. Any purchase of allowances and increase in emissions by one source necessitates a corresponding sale of allowances and either reduction in emissions or use of banked allowances by another covered source. Given the regional nature of ozone, the corresponding NOX emission and/or allowance reduction in one affected area will have an air quality benefit that will compensate, at least in part, for the impact of any emission increase in another affected area. EPA disagrees with any suggestion that only specific emission limits on units can be considered ``reductions.'' In fact, the information that EPA has evaluated in order to conclude that the bi-State Charlotte Area has met the criteria for redesignation shows that power plant emissions in both the Area and the surrounding region have substantially decreased as a result of cap-and-trade programs, including CAIR. The facts contradict the theoretical concerns raised by the Commenter and show that the emission trading programs, combined with other controls, have improved air quality in the Area. Moreover, experience has demonstrated that cap and trade programs do successfully generate lasting emission reductions. For example, the NOX SIP Call and CAIR have successfully reduced transported emissions contributing to ozone nonattainment in areas across the country. Data collected from long-term national air quality monitoring networks demonstrate that these regional cap-and-trade programs have resulted in substantial achievements in air quality caused by emission reductions from power sector sources.\20\ In 2004, EPA designated 91 areas in the Eastern half of the United States as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard adopted in 1997, using data from 2001-2003. Based on data gathered from 2009-2011, 90 of these original Eastern nonattainment areas show concentrations below the 1997 ozone standard.\21\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ See, e.g., EPA, Progress Report 2011--Clean Air Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOX Budget Trading Program--Environmental and Health Results Report (March 2013), available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/progressreports/ARPCAIR11_environmental_health.pdf. \21\ Id. at 12. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many states have sought and continue to seek redesignation of their nonattainment areas relying in part on the reductions attributable to these cap-and-trade programs. See, e.g., 76 FR 59600, 59607 (September 27, 2011) (proposing to redesignate a portion of the Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR 76302 (December 7, 2011); and 74 FR 63995 (December 7, 2009) (redesignation of Great Smoky Mountain National Park for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The Commenter's contention that EPA and North Carolina may not rely on the substantial emission reductions that have already occurred [[Page 44879]] from these rules is based on a faulty and rigid interpretation of the CAA would impose a major obstacle for nonattainment areas across the country that have achieved attainment air quality because of the reductions required by the rules. This would unnecessarily undermine a reasonable, proven, and cost-effective approach to combating regional pollution problems. Of the Federally-enforceable rules relied upon by North Carolina in its redesignation request, the Commenter singles out cap-and-trade programs as insufficiently permanent and enforceable to meet the requirements for redesignation. However, as discussed above, a number of other permanent and enforceable measures have helped contribute to the Area's attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and ensure maintenance of that standard. There is inherent flexibility in nearly all of these measures, including Federal transportation control measures and SIP emission rate limits, also known as ``command-and- control'' regulations. For example, the rules do not and cannot account for when and where people drive their cars, nor do they dictate that consumers in a certain area invest in newer, lower-emitting cars. Similarly, emission rate limits limit the rate of emissions per unit of fuel consumed, or parts per million of emissions in the exhaust but do not regulate throughput or hours of operation of the regulated sources. It would be unworkable for EPA to disqualify a requirement as ``permanent and enforceable'' for the purposes of redesignation simply because the requirement did not require the exact same pollutant emission reduction every hour of every day of every year. North Carolina relied on a suite of requirements that, while inherently allowing for some flexibility, has collectively served to bring the Area into, and to maintain, attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's position that cap-and-trade programs are permanent and enforceable measures under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently upheld by two Federal appellate courts. In the most recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Sierra Club's argument that EPA improperly relied on emissions reductions from cap-and-trade programs such as the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and CSAPR in redesignating the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015). This decision is consistent with the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014) that EPA could rely on the NOX SIP Call cap-and-trade program as a permanent and enforceable measure in redesignating the Milwaukee-Racine, Greater Chicago, and St. Louis (Illinois portion) nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA also notes that North Carolina's maintenance plan provides for verification of continued attainment by performing future reviews of triennial emissions inventories and also for contingency measures to ensure that the NAAQS is maintained into the future if monitored increases in ambient ozone concentrations occur. See 80 FR 29250. For this and the above reasons, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that the State failed to identify permanent and enforceable emissions reductions in its maintenance plan. Regarding the need for additional controls at the GG Allen and Marshall power plants, EPA has concluded that the Area has attained, and will maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the permanent and enforceable measures identified in the State's submission and in EPA's NPR. EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam Plant is not located within the bi-state Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary, and is therefore not included in the emissions comparison portion of the maintenance demonstration. Furthermore, continued nonattainment status for this Area would not require any further emissions controls for either power plant under their current configurations. Comment 6: The Commenter believes that redesignating the bi-state Charlotte Area would ``eliminate needed additional air quality planning requirements and jeopardize public health by delaying permanent attainment for the area.'' According to the Commenter, the Area ``consistently records higher asthma rates than the entire state. Moreover, the impacts of ozone pollution have significant environmental justice implications as African Americans carry a disproportionate asthma burden compared with whites in North Carolina.'' The Commenter therefore concludes that EPA should not redesignate the Area and that ``[b]efore making a final decision on whether or not to approve DAQ's redesignation request, EPA must evaluate the environmental justice implications of such action and, if it still determines that redesignation is justified, must allow for additional public comment on any proposed action.'' Response 6: As noted in EPA's May 21, 2015 NPR, Executive Order 12898 establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. These final actions do not relax control measures on existing sources and therefore will not cause emissions increases from those sources. Thus, these actions will not have an adverse human health or environmental effect on any individuals, including minority or low-income populations. As discussed above and in EPA's May 21, 2015 NPR, the Area has attained the 2008 8-hour NAAQS through permanent and enforceable measures, emissions in the Area are projected to decline following the redesignation, and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to meet the NAAQS for the next ten years and includes contingency measures to quickly address any NAAQS violations. While the Commenter has expressed a general concern that this action will ``eliminate needed additional air quality planning requirements and jeopardize public health by delaying permanent attainment,'' the Commenter has not identified any specific requirements of concern or any specific information on the potential emissions impact that would arise if those requirements were not in place. Such future emission impacts are speculative, and to the extent that emissions in fact increase in the future to levels that would impact NAAQS maintenance-- which EPA does not think will happen--the Agency could take future action to address actual emissions in the Area. III. What are the effects of these actions? Approval of North Carolina's redesignation request changes the legal designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, found at 40 CFR 81.334, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026. The maintenance plan establishes NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for [[Page 44880]] the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area and includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area along with the allocations from the safety margin are provided in the tables below.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2026. NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd (2650 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd (2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC MVEB. After allocation of the available safety margin, the remaining safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd for NOX and 10.15 tpd for VOC. Table 4--Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization Sub-Area MVEBs [kg/day] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2014 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOX VOC NOX VOC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Base Emissions.................................. 11,814 7,173 3,124 3,135 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB................. .............. .............. 625 627 Conformity MVEB................................. 11,814 7,173 3,749 3,762 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 5--Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization Sub-Area MVEBs [kg/day] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2014 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOX VOC NOX VOC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Base Emissions.................................. 10,079 5,916 2,482 2,278 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB................. .............. .............. 510 470 Conformity MVEB................................. 10,079 5,916 2,992 2,748 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 6--Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization--Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Sub- Area MVEBs [kg/day] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2014 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- NOX VOC NOX VOC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Base Emissions.................................. 32,679 18,038 8,426 8,189 Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB................. .............. .............. 1,515 1,472 Conformity MVEB................................. 32,679 18,038 9,941 9,661 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Final Actions EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding the bi-state Charlotte Area's redesignation to attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2012- 2014 monitoring period. Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for the bi-state Charlotte Area, including the sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026, into the North Carolina SIP. The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the sub-area budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Third, EPA is determining that North Carolina has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is approving North Carolina's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes the official designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 81. EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly- established sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for the bi-state Charlotte Area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission 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 submissions, [[Page 44881]] EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state or Federal law. For these reasons, these actions:Are not a significant regulatory actions 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); Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Are 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.); Do 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); Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Are 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 Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects 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. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control. Dated: July 17, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart II--North Carolina 0 2. In Sec. 52.1770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry ``2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area'' at the end of the table to read as follows: Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State effective EPA approval Federal Register Provision date date citation Explanation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * 2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance 4/16/2015 7/28/2015 [insert Federal ........................... Plan for the North Carolina Register portion of the bi-state citation] Charlotte Area. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 0 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 0 4. In Sec. 81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the entries for ``Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC,'' ``Cabarrus County (part),'' ``Gaston County (part),'' ``Iredell County (part),'' ``Lincoln County (part),'' ``Mecklenburg County,'' ``Rowan County (part),'' and ``Union County (part)'' to read as follows: Sec. 81.334 North Carolina. * * * * * [[Page 44882]] North Carolina--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and secondary] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Designation Classification Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC \2\. This action is Attainment .................. effective 7/28/ 2015. Cabarrus County (part)......... .................. Central Cabarrus Township, .................. Concord Township, Georgeville Township, Harrisburg Township, Kannapolis Township, Midland Township, Mount Pleasant Township, New Gilead Township, Odell Township, Poplar Tent Township, Rimertown Township Gaston County (part) .................. Crowders Mountain Township, .................. Dallas Township, Gastonia Township, Riverbend Township, South Point Township Iredell County (part) .................. Davidson Township, Coddle Creek .................. Township Lincoln County (part) .................. Catawba Springs Township, .................. Ironton Township, Lincolnton Township Mecklenburg County .................. Rowan County (part) .................. Atwell Township, China Grove .................. Township, Franklin Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker Township, Locke Township, Providence Township, Salisbury Township, Steele Township, Unity Township Union County (part) .................. Goose Creek Township, .................. Marshville Township, Monroe Township, Sandy Ridge Township, Vance Township * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted. \2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015-18345 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44873
EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS
State effective
Iowa citation Title EPA approval date Explanation
date
Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
* * * * * * *
Linn County
Chapter 10 .......................... Linn County Air Quality 1/30/15 7/28/15 and [Insert The following definitions are not SIP-approved
Ordinance, Chapter Federal Register ci- in Chapter 10.2; Anaerobic lagoon, Bio-
10. tation]. mass, Chemical processing plants (ethanol
production facilities that produce ethanol by
natural fermentation included in NAICS
code 325193 or 312140 are not included in
this definition); Federally Enforceable;
Greenhouse gases; Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT); MACT floor.
The following sections are not SIP ap-
proved: 10.4(1), Title V Permits; 10.5(9)‘‘b’’
Locally Required Permits; Exemptions from
the Authorization to Install Permit to Oper-
ate Requirements; 10.5(9) ‘‘ll’’, Exemption
for production painting, adhesive or coating
units; 10.8(2)‘‘b’’ Emissions From Fuel-
Burning Equipment; Emission Limitation;
10.8(3) Emissions From Fuel-Burning
Equipment; Exemptions for Residential
Heaters Burning Solid Fuels; 10.8(4) Emis-
sions from Fuel-Burning Equipment; Nui-
sance Conditions for Fuel Burning Equip-
ment; 10.9(2), NSPS; 10.9(3), Emission
Standards for HAPs; 10.9(4), Emission
Standards for HAPs for Source Categories;
10.10(4) Variance from rules; 10.11, Emis-
sion of Objectionable Odors; 10.15,
Variances, 10.17(13) Continuous Emissions
Monitoring from Acid Rain Program, and
10.24, Penalty.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * submitted by the State of North Air Quality Standards (NAAQS);
[FR Doc. 2015–18346 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am] Carolina, through the North Carolina approves and incorporates the State’s
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Department of Environment and Natural plan for maintaining attainment of the
Resources, Department of Air Quality 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area,
(NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION final actions are for the North Carolina motor vehicle emission budgets
AGENCY portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina volatile organic compounds (VOC) for
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 the North Carolina portion of this Area
2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0275; FRL–9931–28– (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state into the SIP; and redesignates the North
Region 4] Charlotte Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The bi-state Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
Approval and Promulgation of County in its entirety and portions of ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds
Implementation Plans and Designation Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, the 2014 and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for
of Areas; North Carolina; Rowan and Union Counties, North the North Carolina portion of the bi-
Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Carolina; and a portion of York County, state Charlotte Area adequate for the
Hill, 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment South Carolina. Regarding South purposes of transportation conformity.
Area to Attainment Carolina’s request to redesignate the DATES: This rule will be effective August
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: Environmental Protection South Carolina portion of the Area and 27, 2015.
Agency. its maintenance plan for the 2008 8- ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
ACTION: Final rule. hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address docket for this action under Docket
this in a separate action. In the three Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection actions for the North Carolina bi-state 2015–0275. All documents in the docket
Agency (EPA) is taking three separate Charlotte Area, EPA determines that the are listed on the www.regulations.gov
final actions related to a state bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the Web site. Although listed in the index,
implementation plan (SIP) revision 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient some information may not be publicly
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/1.svg)
![44874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
available, i.e., Confidential Business and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for concentrations at an ozone monitor, also
Information or other information whose the North Carolina potion of the bi-state known as a monitor’s design value. See
disclosure is restricted by statute. Charlotte Area; and to redesignate the 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. When the
Certain other material, such as North Carolina portion of the Area to design value is less than or equal to
copyrighted material, is not placed on attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 0.075 parts per million (ppm) at each
the Internet and will be publicly NAAQS. See 80 FR 29250. In that monitor within the area, then the area
available only in hard copy form. document, EPA also notified the public is attaining the NAAQS. The data
Publicly available docket materials are of the status of the Agency’s adequacy completeness requirement for
available either electronically through determination for the subarea NOX and evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at VOC MVEBs for the North Carolina attainment is met at each monitor when
the Air Regulatory Management Section portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. the average percent of days with valid
(formerly the Regulatory Development The details of North Carolina’s ambient monitoring data is greater than
Section), Air Planning and submittal and the rationale for EPA’s or equal to 90 percent and no single year
Implementation Branch (formerly the actions are further explained in the has less than 75 percent data
Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides NPR. See 80 FR 29250 (May 21, 2015). completeness as defined in appendix P
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. of 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring data must
II. EPA’s Responses to Comments
Environmental Protection Agency, also be collected and quality-assured in
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., EPA received two sets of comments accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA on its May 21, 2015, proposed recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality
requests that if at all possible, you rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA System (AQS).
contact the person listed in the FOR received adverse comments from the EPA’s analysis of monitoring data in
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to Sierra Club (‘‘Commenter’’) and the bi-state Charlotte Area supports its
schedule your inspection. The Regional comments supporting the proposed determination under section
Office’s official hours of business are actions from one member of the general 107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area has attained
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to public.1 Full sets of these comments are the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. provided in the docket for this final design values for each monitor in the
action. See Docket number EPA–R04– Area for the years 2012–2014 are less
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OAR–2015–0275. A summary of the than or equal to 0.075 ppm, and the data
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory
adverse comments and EPA’s responses from these monitors during this time
Management Section, Air Planning and
are provided below. period meet the data quality and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides Comment 1: The Commenter asserts completeness requirements and are
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. that North Carolina experienced recorded in AQS. Therefore, the bi-state
Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘abnormally cool weather’’ during the Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8-
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., summers of 2013 and 2014 ‘‘that hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. reduced the likelihood of ozone 40 CFR part 50, appendix P
Lakeman may be reached by phone at formation’’ and that the design values requirements.
(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at for the Area would have exceeded the Comment 2: The Commenter believes
lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 2008 8-hour ozone standard ‘‘but for the that EPA should disapprove North
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: uncharacteristically cool summers in Carolina’s redesignation request because
I. Background for Final Actions 2013 and 2014.’’ Therefore, the ‘‘neither EPA nor DAQ has
Commenter believes that EPA ‘‘should demonstrated that the recording of a
On May 21, 2012, EPA designated decline to issue the requested design value below 75 ppb [parts per
areas as unclassifiable/attainment or attainment determination for the Area.’’ billion] for the years 2012–2014 is ‘due
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour Response 1: EPA disagrees with the to permanent and enforceable
ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on Commenter’s position that weather reductions’ ’’ as required by CAA
March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The should impact EPA’s determination that section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to
bi-state Charlotte Area was designated the area has attained the NAAQS the Commenter, EPA and NC DAQ
as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). cannot make this demonstration because
ozone NAAQS and classified as a That factual determination is based ‘‘but for the uncharacteristically cool
marginal nonattainment area. On April solely on air quality monitoring data summers in 2013 and 2014, a design
16, 2015, NC DAQ requested that EPA and on the Agency’s evaluation of that value above 75 ppb would have been
redesignate the North Carolina portion data’s compliance with 40 CFR part 50, recorded.’’ The Commenter also
of the Area to attainment for the 2008 appendix P. Therefore, weather contends that the ‘‘uncharacteristically
8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a conditions, including any alleged cool summers in 2013 and 2014’’
SIP revision containing the State’s plan resulting changes in energy demand, are resulted in ‘‘unusually low monthly
for maintaining attainment of the 2008 irrelevant in determining whether an total consumption of electric power’’
8-hour ozone standard in the Area, area is factually attaining a NAAQS. and ‘‘starkly lower capacity factors’’
including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part from Duke Energy’s GG Allen and
NOX and VOC for the North Carolina 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is Marshall power plants during those
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. In determined by calculating the three-year summers and notes that ‘‘operation of
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) average of the annual fourth-highest these plants significantly impacts total
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
published on May 21, 2015, EPA daily maximum 8-hour average ozone NOX emissions and, thus, overall ozone
proposed to determine that the bi-state levels.’’ 2 Despite the alleged decrease in
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8- 1 The supporting comments state that the 2012–
hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and 2014 three-year average ‘‘support[s] attainment’’ 2 The GG Allen plant is located in the portion of
incorporate into the North Carolina SIP and that the ‘‘[p]rojected NOX shows decreases in Gaston County that is included in the
all categories over the next decade, so even if the nonattainment area. The Marshall plant is located
the State’s plan for maintaining predicted large projected decreases in on-road NOX in Catawba County and is not located within the
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone are not met the area should still see an overall nonattainment area. During the nonattainment
standard in the Area, including the 2014 decrease in ozone levels.’’ designation in 2012, sources in Catawba County
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44875
the capacity factors at these two EGUs, improvement in air quality in the Area alone ‘‘provide sufficient justification
the Commenter states that ‘‘the plants was due to those emissions reductions for EPA to reject DAQ’s request for the
still tend to run at a significantly higher in accordance with CAA section redesignation of the Area from
capacity factor on peak ozone days.’’ 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). nonattainment to attainment.’’ To the
Response 2: Weather effects are not As noted above, Federal regulations contrary, the certified data show that the
controllable, and weather is just one of require EPA to use a three-year average Area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone
the parameters that allow for ozone to determine attainment of the 2008 8- NAAQS from 2012 to 2014, a time
formation. EPA does not disagree with hour ozone NAAQS. The averaging of period with varying meteorological
the Commenter that ozone season values over three years serves to account
conditions. Preliminary monitoring data
temperatures and precipitation are two for some variation in meteorology from
from 2015 also indicates that the bi-state
readily available parameters that can be year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013
used to evaluate the potential weather was cooler than the long-term average Charlotte Area continues to attain the
impacts on ozone concentrations. Ozone temperature and may have been less 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.6
is more readily formed on warm, sunny conducive to the formation of ozone, the Table 1 provides temperature and
days when the air is stagnant. Agency also notes that the weather precipitation data for the bi-state
Conversely, ozone production is conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons
generally more limited when it is season included in the three-year (May 1 –September 30) from 2010–2014
cloudy, cool, rainy, or windy.3 average forming the basis for the obtained from the National Oceanic and
However, although EPA agrees that the attainment determination) were warmer Atmospheric Administration’s National
Area experienced cooler and wetter than the long-term average and were Centers for Environmental Information
weather during some of the relevant more conducive to ozone formation. See (NOAA NCEI).7 Specifically, Table 1
time period, EPA disagrees with the Table 1, below.4 Furthermore, provides overall average and average
Commenter that the improvement in air temperatures in the summer of 2014 are maximum ozone season temperatures
quality in the bi-state Charlotte Area close to the long-term average
and total ozone season precipitation;
was solely the result of ‘‘aberrant temperatures. Given the higher than
deviation from the 74-year average
weather.’’ EPA has examined the long-term average 2012 temperatures
weather data presented by the and the near normal 5 temperatures in ozone season temperature and
Commenter, and has determined, after 2014, EPA does not agree with the precipitation (termed the ‘‘anomaly’’);
conducting its own analysis of the Commenter’s conclusion that and the rank of the given year on the 74-
meteorological conditions and the meteorological conditions during the year (1940–2014) recorded history list.
emission reductions occurring during relevant time period were so unusual or A rank of 74 is given to the hottest or
the relevant time period, that the abnormal such that those conditions wettest year.
TABLE 1—CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION OZONE SEASON (MAY–SEPTEMBER) DATA 8
Average Average maximum
May-September May-September Precipitation
temperature temperature [inches]
Rank [since 1940, Rank [since 1940, Rank [since 1940,
Year [degrees F] [degrees F] (anomaly from the
scale of 1–74] scale of 1–74] scale of 1–74]
(anomaly from the (anomaly from the long-term average
long-term average long-term average [18.17 inches])
[74.7 degrees F]) [84.9 degrees F])
2010 ..................... 78.0 (+3.3) 73 88.8 (+3.9) 73 17.67 (¥0.5) 36
2011 ..................... 76.2 (+1.5) 64 87.3 (+2.4) 67 22.1 (+3.93) 58
2012 ..................... 75.3 (+0.6) 52 86.3 (+1.4) 54 18.87 (+0.7) 44
2013 ..................... 73.9 (¥0.8) 21 83.3 (¥1.6) 12 22.63 (+4.46) 61
2014 ..................... 74.5 (¥0.2) 32 84.5 (¥0.4) 32 19.01 (+0.84) 46
The data in Table 1 show that both 2014. The year 2012 was one of the abnormally conducive to low ozone
average temperature and precipitation hottest in the recent past across the formation and does not undermine
varied significantly from 2010–2014. Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat EPA’s analysis that the attainment in the
The rank and anomaly data in Table 1 wave occurred in late June through early bi-state Charlotte Area was due to
show that average ozone season July 2012, which resulted in high ozone permanent and enforceable reductions.
temperatures and precipitation were levels measured across the Southeast. EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone
slightly above normal for the year 2012, Based upon the meteorology analysis, data and meteorology for May 2015,
temperatures were below normal and 2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and which is the beginning of the ozone
precipitation was above normal in 2013, 2014 was near normal when compared season in the Area. The Commenter
and temperatures were near normal and to the long-term average. Therefore, the provided data to show that the average
precipitation slightly above normal in 2012–2014 period does not appear to be maximum temperature in May 2015 is
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
were not found to contribute to violations of the 5 EPA’s analysis is based on weather data from the aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is
Area. See http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ (see below). NOAA defines ‘‘normal’’ as the ‘‘long- available under the Designated Area field in Table
2008standards/documents/R4_Charlotte_TSD_ term average value of a meteorological element for 5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http://
a certain area. For example, ‘temperatures are
Final.pdf. www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
normal for this time of year[.]’ Usually averaged
3 http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html. 7 Ozone is monitored from April 1 through
over 30 years.’’ See http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/
4 EPA’s use of the phrase ‘‘long-term average’’ box/glossary.htm. October 31 in the bi-state Charlotte Area.
refers to the 74-year averages identified in Table 1. 6 This preliminary data is available at EPA’s air 8 EPA obtained this weather data from the NOAA
data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/ NCEI Web site at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/3.svg)
![44876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
higher than the average maximum May data available through June 28, 2015, emissions data show that from 2011 to
temperature over the previous ten years. indicate that the 4th Highest Maximum 2014, non-road NOX and VOC emissions
EPA agrees that the average maximum Daily 8-hour Average value for the bi- decreased, point source NOX emissions
temperature in May 2015 was above state Charlotte area monitors from decreased, and on-road mobile NOX and
average; in fact, the average maximum March 1, 2015 through June 28, 2015 is VOC emissions have decreased
temperature was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, 72 ppb.9 substantially. During this time period,
which is 4.2 degrees above average and The Commenter’s focus on mobile source NOX emissions decreased
it ranks 67 out of 75 years of recorded meteorological conditions is by approximately 54.5 tons per summer
inconsistent with EPA’s analysis of the
data in the bi-state Charlotte Area. day (tpsd) (equating to 79 percent of the
permanent and enforceable emission
However, even with this abnormally total NOX emissions reductions) and
reductions that did occur in the area
warm month, the May 2015 preliminary during the relevant time period. mobile source VOC emissions decreased
ozone data indicates that no Consistent with EPA’s longstanding by approximately 26.5 tpsd (equating to
exceedances of the 75 ppb ozone practice and policy, a comparison of 100 percent of the total VOC emissions
standard occurred and that the highest nonattainment period emissions with reductions). It is not necessary for every
8-hour average was 72 ppb. This data attainment period emissions is a change in emissions between the
also indicates that although relevant in demonstrating permanent nonattainment year and the attainment
meteorological conditions were and enforceable emissions reductions. year to be permanent and enforceable.
conducive to ozone formation, EPA evaluated the ozone precursor Rather, the CAA requires that
emissions in the Area were low enough emissions data in the Area and found improvement in air quality necessary for
not to support the formation of ozone that there were significant reductions in the area to attain the relevant NAAQS
above a level that would exceed the these emissions in multiple source must be reasonably attributable to
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. categories from 2011 (a nonattainment permanent and enforceable emission
Additionally, preliminary ozone season year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The reductions in emissions.
TABLE 2—NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CHARLOTTE 2008 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA
[Tons per summer day]
Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
2011 ..................................................................................... 47.17 6.68 112.13 28.75 194.73
2014 ..................................................................................... 32.38 11.40 60.15 26.26 130.18
TABLE 3—VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE CHARLOTTE 2008 OZONE NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREA
[Tons per summer day]
Year Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
2011 ..................................................................................... 11.37 46.69 55.35 24.4 137.81
2014 ..................................................................................... 12.03 47.88 34.32 18.89 113.12
The emissions reductions identified mobile source measures have resulted annually by 2030.14 Implementation of
in Tables 2 and 3, above, are attributable in, and continue to result in, large the heavy-duty gasoline and diesel
to numerous measures implemented reductions in NOX emissions over time highway vehicle standards rule also
during this period, including the due to fleet turnover (i.e., the began in 2004. EPA projects a 2.6
permanent and enforceable mobile replacement of older vehicles that million ton reduction in NOX emissions
source measures discussed in the NPR predate the standards with newer by 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle
such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel vehicles that meet the standards). For fleet is completely replaced with newer
standards, the large non-road diesel example, implementation of the Tier 2 heavy-duty vehicles that comply with
engines rule,10 heavy-duty gasoline and standards began in 2004, and as newer, these emission standards.15
diesel highway vehicle standards,11 cleaner cars enter the national fleet, The State calculated the on-road and
medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel these standards continue to significantly non-road mobile source emissions
consumption and GHG standards,12 reduce NOX emissions. EPA expects that contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-
non-road spark-ignitions and these standards will reduce NOX approved models and procedures that
recreational standards,13 and the emissions from vehicles by account for the Federal mobile source
national program for GHG emissions approximately 74 percent by 2030, measures identified above, fleet
and fuel economy standards. These translating to nearly 3 million tons turnover, and increased population.16 17
9 This preliminary data is available at EPA’s air 11 Implementation of this rule is expected to 15 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
data Web site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/ achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions 16 North Carolina used EPA’s MOVES2014 model
aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list from diesel trucks and buses. to calculate on-road emissions factors and EPA’s
12 When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is
of monitors in the bi-state Charlotte Area is NONROAD 2008a model to quantify off-road
available under the Designated Area field in Table expected to reduce NOX emissions from the covered
emissions.
vehicles by 20 percent.
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http:// 13 When fully implemented, the standards will
17 North Carolina used the interagency
www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. consultation process required by 40 CFR part 93
result in an 80 percent reduction in NOX by 2020.
10 EPA estimated that compliance with this rule
14 EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420–F– (known as the Transportation Conformity Rule)
will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel 99–051 (December 1999), available at: http://
engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/4.svg)
![44878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
underestimation of future emissions.’’ states its belief that they are not will have an air quality benefit that will
According to the Commenter, EPA permanent and enforceable because they compensate, at least in part, for the
should ‘‘require DAQ to reevaluate the are cap and trade programs that could impact of any emission increase in
Area’s ability to attain and maintain the allow for increased NOX emissions at another affected area. EPA disagrees
ozone NAAQS using emissions data Duke Energy’s GG Allen and Marshall with any suggestion that only specific
from a year (or years) in which summer power plants. The Commenter further emission limits on units can be
weather conditions were more typical.’’ states that ‘‘DAQ should impose considered ‘‘reductions.’’ In fact, the
Response 4: As discussed in Response enforceable limits on NOX emissions information that EPA has evaluated in
2, EPA does not agree with the from all EGUs [electricity generating order to conclude that the bi-State
Commenter’s assertion that the weather units] that are based on available and Charlotte Area has met the criteria for
in summer 2014 was ‘‘unusually cool’’ demonstrated control technology.’’ redesignation shows that power plant
when the conditions from that year are Response 5: EPA disagrees with the emissions in both the Area and the
viewed in comparison to a larger data Commenter. Consistent with EPA surrounding region have substantially
set, and therefore does not agree that NC guidance, the State’s maintenance plan decreased as a result of cap-and-trade
DAQ selected an inappropriate base identifies a number of permanent and programs, including CAIR. The facts
year for a maintenance demonstration. enforceable requirements, including contradict the theoretical concerns
Furthermore, it is unclear how the measures that regulate area, on-road, raised by the Commenter and show that
Commenter concludes that EPA should and off-road sources, and discusses the the emission trading programs,
disapprove the maintenance plan even emissions reductions associated with combined with other controls, have
if the Agency accepted the Commenter’s each measure.18 See 80 FR 29250. In improved air quality in the Area.
assertion that the weather in 2014 was discussing the emissions reductions and Moreover, experience has
‘‘aberrant.’’ The maintenance status of these measures, the State has demonstrated that cap and trade
demonstration compares base year provided assurance that these programs do successfully generate
emissions to future year emissions. If requirements will result in emissions lasting emission reductions. For
total future year emissions are above reductions.19 example, the NOX SIP Call and CAIR
total base year emissions, maintenance EPA also disagrees with the have successfully reduced transported
is not demonstrated. For some source Commenter’s belief that emission emissions contributing to ozone
categories, future year emissions are reductions associated with the CSA, nonattainment in areas across the
projected using base year emissions; CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent country. Data collected from long-term
however, for other source categories, and enforceable simply because the national air quality monitoring networks
future year emissions projections are underlying program is an emissions demonstrate that these regional cap-and-
independent of base year emissions. trading program. Cap-and-trade trade programs have resulted in
Projected emissions for source programs provide economic incentives substantial achievements in air quality
categories that rely on base year for early reductions in emissions and caused by emission reductions from
emissions will be proportional to base encourage sources to install controls power sector sources.20 In 2004, EPA
year emissions in the same degree earlier than required for compliance designated 91 areas in the Eastern half
regardless of the base year emissions with future caps on emissions. The of the United States as nonattainment
used. It is therefore more likely that an flexibility under a cap-and-trade system for the 8-hour ozone standard adopted
area will fail to demonstrate is not about whether to reduce in 1997, using data from 2001–2003.
maintenance using a comparison of total emissions; rather, it is about how to Based on data gathered from 2009–2011,
emissions if the baseline is artificially reduce them at the lowest possible cost. 90 of these original Eastern
low. In addition, while emissions from Trading programs require total mass nonattainment areas show
some source categories may vary as a emission reductions by establishing concentrations below the 1997 ozone
result of weather conditions, the overall mandatory caps on total emissions to standard.21
NOX and VOC emissions released from permanently reduce the total mass Many states have sought and continue
year to year across source categories is emissions allowed by sources subject to to seek redesignation of their
generally not weather-dependent; the programs, validated through nonattainment areas relying in part on
therefore, weather does not play a rigorous continuous emission the reductions attributable to these cap-
determinative role in the base year to monitoring and reporting regimens. The and-trade programs. See, e.g., 76 FR
future year emissions comparison. emission caps and associated controls 59600, 59607 (September 27, 2011)
Comment 5: The Commenter claims are enforced through the associated SIP (proposing to redesignate a portion of
that EPA must disapprove the State’s rules or federal implementation plans. the Chicago area for the 1997 8-hour
maintenance plan because ‘‘it fails to Any purchase of allowances and ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR
specify emissions reductions that are increase in emissions by one source 76302 (December 7, 2011); and 74 FR
permanent and enforceable. The necessitates a corresponding sale of 63995 (December 7, 2009)
proposed plan identifies various state allowances and either reduction in (redesignation of Great Smoky Mountain
and Federal requirements that may emissions or use of banked allowances National Park for the 1997 8-hour ozone
apply to the major stationary sources of by another covered source. NAAQS). The Commenter’s contention
air pollution located in and in close Given the regional nature of ozone, that EPA and North Carolina may not
proximity to the Charlotte Area, the corresponding NOX emission and/or rely on the substantial emission
however, it fails to present any allowance reduction in one affected area reductions that have already occurred
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
assurance that such requirements will
result in any reduction in emissions.’’ In 18 See, e.g., Memorandum from John Calcagni, 20 See, e.g., EPA, Progress Report 2011—Clean Air
support, the Commenter references Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Interstate Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former
three requirements—North Carolina’s Regional Air Directors entitled ‘‘Procedures for NOX Budget Trading Program—Environmental and
Clean Smokestacks Act and EPA’s Clean Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Health Results Report (March 2013), available at:
Attainment’’ (September 4, 1992). http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Cross 19 See Response 2, above, for further discussion progressreports/ARPCAIR11_environmental_
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As to of these permanent and enforceable emissions health.pdf.
these three measures, the Commenter reductions. 21 Id. at 12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44879
from these rules is based on a faulty and EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014) that establishes Federal executive policy on
rigid interpretation of the CAA would EPA could rely on the NOX SIP Call cap- environmental justice. Its main
impose a major obstacle for and-trade program as a permanent and provision directs Federal agencies, to
nonattainment areas across the country enforceable measure in redesignating the greatest extent practicable and
that have achieved attainment air the Milwaukee-Racine, Greater Chicago, permitted by law, to make
quality because of the reductions and St. Louis (Illinois portion) environmental justice part of their
required by the rules. This would nonattainment areas to attainment for mission by identifying and addressing,
unnecessarily undermine a reasonable, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. as appropriate, disproportionately high
proven, and cost-effective approach to EPA also notes that North Carolina’s and adverse human health or
combating regional pollution problems. maintenance plan provides for environmental effects of their programs,
Of the Federally-enforceable rules verification of continued attainment by policies, and activities on minority
relied upon by North Carolina in its performing future reviews of triennial populations and low-income
redesignation request, the Commenter emissions inventories and also for populations in the United States. These
singles out cap-and-trade programs as contingency measures to ensure that the final actions do not relax control
insufficiently permanent and NAAQS is maintained into the future if measures on existing sources and
enforceable to meet the requirements for monitored increases in ambient ozone therefore will not cause emissions
redesignation. However, as discussed concentrations occur. See 80 FR 29250. increases from those sources. Thus,
above, a number of other permanent and For this and the above reasons, EPA these actions will not have an adverse
enforceable measures have helped disagrees with the Commenter’s human health or environmental effect
contribute to the Area’s attainment of position that the State failed to identify on any individuals, including minority
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and permanent and enforceable emissions or low-income populations. As
ensure maintenance of that standard. reductions in its maintenance plan. discussed above and in EPA’s May 21,
There is inherent flexibility in nearly all Regarding the need for additional 2015 NPR, the Area has attained the
of these measures, including Federal controls at the GG Allen and Marshall 2008 8-hour NAAQS through permanent
transportation control measures and SIP power plants, EPA has concluded that and enforceable measures, emissions in
emission rate limits, also known as the Area has attained, and will the Area are projected to decline
‘‘command-and-control’’ regulations. maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone following the redesignation, and the
For example, the rules do not and NAAQS with the permanent and maintenance plan demonstrates that the
cannot account for when and where enforceable measures identified in the Area will continue to meet the NAAQS
people drive their cars, nor do they State’s submission and in EPA’s NPR. for the next ten years and includes
dictate that consumers in a certain area EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam contingency measures to quickly
invest in newer, lower-emitting cars. Plant is not located within the bi-state address any NAAQS violations. While
Similarly, emission rate limits limit the Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary, the Commenter has expressed a general
rate of emissions per unit of fuel and is therefore not included in the concern that this action will ‘‘eliminate
consumed, or parts per million of emissions comparison portion of the needed additional air quality planning
emissions in the exhaust but do not maintenance demonstration. requirements and jeopardize public
regulate throughput or hours of Furthermore, continued nonattainment health by delaying permanent
operation of the regulated sources. It status for this Area would not require attainment,’’ the Commenter has not
would be unworkable for EPA to any further emissions controls for either identified any specific requirements of
disqualify a requirement as ‘‘permanent power plant under their current concern or any specific information on
and enforceable’’ for the purposes of configurations. the potential emissions impact that
redesignation simply because the Comment 6: The Commenter believes would arise if those requirements were
requirement did not require the exact that redesignating the bi-state Charlotte not in place. Such future emission
same pollutant emission reduction Area would ‘‘eliminate needed impacts are speculative, and to the
every hour of every day of every year. additional air quality planning extent that emissions in fact increase in
North Carolina relied on a suite of requirements and jeopardize public the future to levels that would impact
requirements that, while inherently health by delaying permanent NAAQS maintenance—which EPA does
allowing for some flexibility, has attainment for the area.’’ According to not think will happen—the Agency
collectively served to bring the Area the Commenter, the Area ‘‘consistently could take future action to address
into, and to maintain, attainment of the records higher asthma rates than the actual emissions in the Area.
NAAQS. entire state. Moreover, the impacts of
EPA’s position that cap-and-trade ozone pollution have significant III. What are the effects of these
programs are permanent and environmental justice implications as actions?
enforceable measures under section African Americans carry a Approval of North Carolina’s
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently upheld by disproportionate asthma burden redesignation request changes the legal
two Federal appellate courts. In the compared with whites in North designation of Mecklenburg County in
most recent decision, the United States Carolina.’’ The Commenter therefore its entirety and portions of Cabarrus,
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concludes that EPA should not Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and
rejected Sierra Club’s argument that redesignate the Area and that ‘‘[b]efore Union Counties in the North Carolina
EPA improperly relied on emissions making a final decision on whether or portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area,
reductions from cap-and-trade programs not to approve DAQ’s redesignation found at 40 CFR 81.334, from
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
such as the NOX SIP Call, CAIR, and request, EPA must evaluate the nonattainment to attainment for the
CSAPR in redesignating the Cincinnati- environmental justice implications of 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Approval of
Hamilton nonattainment area for the such action and, if it still determines North Carolina’s associated SIP revision
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sierra Club v. EPA, that redesignation is justified, must also incorporates a plan for maintaining
781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015). This allow for additional public comment on the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
decision is consistent with the opinion any proposed action.’’ bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026.
of the United States Court of Appeals for Response 6: As noted in EPA’s May The maintenance plan establishes NOX
the Seventh Circuit in Sierra Club v. 21, 2015 NPR, Executive Order 12898 and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/7.svg)
![44880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the North Carolina portion of the bi- ozone NAAQS and procedures for along with the allocations from the
state Charlotte Area and includes evaluation of potential violations. The safety margin are provided in the tables
contingency measures to remedy any sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina below.22
future violations of the 2008 8-hour portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
TABLE 4—CABARRUS ROWAN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS
[kg/day]
2014 2026
NOX VOC NOX VOC
Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 11,814 7,173 3,124 3,135
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 625 627
Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 11,814 7,173 3,749 3,762
TABLE 5—GASTON-CLEVELAND-LINCOLN METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS
[kg/day]
2014 2026
NOX VOC NOX VOC
Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 10,079 5,916 2,482 2,278
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 510 470
Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 10,079 5,916 2,992 2,748
TABLE 6—CHARLOTTE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION—ROCKY RIVER RURAL PLANNING
ORGANIZATION SUB-AREA MVEBS
[kg/day]
2014 2026
NOX VOC NOX VOC
Base Emissions ............................................................................................... 32,679 18,038 8,426 8,189
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,515 1,472
Conformity MVEB ............................................................................................ 32,679 18,038 9,941 9,661
IV. Final Actions section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North demonstrate conformity to the new sub-
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte area NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to
EPA is taking three separate final
Area for redesignation from 40 CFR 93.104(e).
actions regarding the bi-state Charlotte
nonattainment to attainment for the
Area’s redesignation to attainment and V. Statutory and Executive Order
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone Reviews
basis, EPA is approving North Carolina’s
NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that redesignation request for the 2008 8- Under the CAA, redesignation of an
the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining hour ozone NAAQS for the North area to attainment and the
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte accompanying approval of the
complete, quality-assured and certified Area. As mentioned above, approval of maintenance plan under CAA section
monitoring data for the 2012–2014 the redesignation request changes the 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
monitoring period. official designation of Mecklenburg status of geographical area and do not
Second, EPA is approving and County in its entirety and portions of impose any additional regulatory
incorporating the maintenance plan for Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, requirements on sources beyond those
the bi-state Charlotte Area, including Rowan and Union Counties in the North required by state law. A redesignation to
the sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte attainment does not in and of itself
2014 and 2026, into the North Carolina Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS impose any new requirements, but
SIP. The maintenance plan from nonattainment to attainment, as rather results in the application of
demonstrates that the Area will found at 40 CFR part 81. requirements contained in the CAA for
continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour EPA is also notifying the public that areas that have been redesignated to
ozone NAAQS, and the sub-area budgets EPA finds the newly-established sub- attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
meet all of the adequacy criteria area NOX and VOC MVEBs for the bi- is required to approve a SIP submission
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and state Charlotte Area adequate for the that complies with the provisions of the
(5). purpose of transportation conformity. Act and applicable Federal regulations.
Third, EPA is determining that North Within 24 months from this final rule, See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Carolina has met the criteria under CAA the transportation partners will need to Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
22 North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion (2650 kg/day) to the 2026 NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd remaining safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd
of the available safety margin to the NOX and VOC (2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC MVEB. After for NOX and 10.15 tpd for VOC.
MVEBs for 2026. NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd allocation of the available safety margin, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 44881
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, • Will not have disproportionate for judicial review may be filed, and
provided that they meet the criteria of human health or environmental effects shall not postpone the effectiveness of
the CAA. Accordingly, these actions under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR such rule or action. This action may not
merely approve state law as meeting 7629, February 16, 1994). be challenged later in proceedings to
Federal requirements and do not impose The SIP is not approved to apply on enforce its requirements. See section
additional requirements beyond those any Indian reservation land or in any 307(b)(2).
imposed by state or Federal law. For other area where EPA or an Indian tribe List of Subjects
these reasons, these actions: has demonstrated that a tribe has
• Are not a significant regulatory jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 40 CFR Part 52
actions subject to review by the Office country, the rule does not have tribal Environmental protection, Air
of Management and Budget under implications as specified by Executive pollution control, Incorporation by
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, reference, Intergovernmental relations,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 2000), nor will it impose substantial Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
January 21, 2011); direct costs on tribal governments or recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
• Do not impose an information preempt tribal law. organic compounds.
collection burden under the provisions The Congressional Review Act, 5
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 40 CFR Part 81
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Business Regulatory Enforcement Environmental protection, Air
• Are certified as not having a Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides pollution control.
significant economic impact on a that before a rule may take effect, the
Dated: July 17, 2015.
substantial number of small entities agency promulgating the rule must
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Heather McTeer Toney,
submit a rule report, which includes a
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); copy of the rule, to each House of the Regional Administrator, Region 4.
• Do not contain any unfunded Congress and to the Comptroller General 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended
mandate or significantly or uniquely of the United States. EPA will submit a as follows:
affect small governments, as described report containing this action and other
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act required information to the U.S. Senate, PART 52—APPROVAL AND
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROMULGATION OF
• Do not have Federalism the Comptroller General of the United IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
implications as specified in Executive States prior to publication of the rule in ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, the Federal Register. A major rule continues to read as follows:
1999); cannot take effect until 60 days after it
• Are not economically significant is published in the Federal Register. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
regulatory actions based on health or This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
Subpart II—North Carolina
safety risks subject to Executive Order defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, ■ 2. In § 52.1770, the table in paragraph
• Are not a significant regulatory petitions for judicial review of this (e) is amended by adding a new entry
action subject to Executive Order 13211 action must be filed in the United States ‘‘2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Court of Appeals for the appropriate for the North Carolina portion of the bi-
• Are not subject to requirements of circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a state Charlotte Area’’ at the end of the
Section 12(d) of the National petition for reconsideration by the table to read as follows:
Technology Transfer and Advancement Administrator of this final rule does not
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because affect the finality of this action for the § 52.1770 Identification of plan.
application of those requirements would purposes of judicial review nor does it * * * * *
be inconsistent with the CAA; and extend the time within which a petition (e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State effective EPA approval
Provision Federal Register citation Explanation
date date
* * * * * * *
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for 4/16/2015 7/28/2015 [insert Federal Register citation]
the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area.
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS ■ 4. In § 81.334, the table entitled ‘‘Lincoln County (part),’’ ‘‘Mecklenburg
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING ‘‘North Carolina—2008 8-Hour Ozone County,’’ ‘‘Rowan County (part),’’ and
PURPOSES NAAQS (Primary and secondary)’’ is ‘‘Union County (part)’’ to read as
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
amended by revising the entries for follows:
■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 ‘‘Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC,’’
continues to read as follows: ‘‘Cabarrus County (part),’’ ‘‘Gaston § 81.334 North Carolina.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. County (part),’’ ‘‘Iredell County (part),’’ * * * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/9.svg)
![44882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 144 / Tuesday, July 28, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
NORTH CAROLINA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation Classification
Designated area
Date 1 Type Date 1 Type
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC–SC 2 ....................................... This action is effective 7/ Attainment
28/2015.
Cabarrus County (part) .................................................
Central Cabarrus Township, Concord Township,
Georgeville Township, Harrisburg Township,
Kannapolis Township, Midland Township, Mount
Pleasant Township, New Gilead Township, Odell
Township, Poplar Tent Township, Rimertown Town-
ship
Gaston County (part)
Crowders Mountain Township, Dallas Township, Gas-
tonia Township, Riverbend Township, South Point
Township
Iredell County (part)
Davidson Township, Coddle Creek Township
Lincoln County (part)
Catawba Springs Township, Ironton Township,
Lincolnton Township
Mecklenburg County
Rowan County (part)
Atwell Township, China Grove Township, Franklin
Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker Township,
Locke Township, Providence Township, Salisbury
Township, Steele Township, Unity Township
Union County (part)
Goose Creek Township, Marshville Township, Monroe
Township, Sandy Ridge Township, Vance Town-
ship
* * * * * * *
1 This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * * round of NUSA allowance allocations described the process for submitting any
[FR Doc. 2015–18345 Filed 7–27–15; 8:45 am] for the 2015 compliance year and has objections to the preliminary
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P posted spreadsheets containing the calculations.
calculations on EPA’s Web site. The In response to the June 1 NODA, EPA
final allocations are unchanged from the received three timely written objections,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION preliminary calculations. EPA will two late written objections, and several
AGENCY record the allocated allowances in telephone inquiries. The objections and
sources’ Allowance Management inquiries all concerned the question of
40 CFR Part 97 System (AMS) accounts by August 1, whether EPA is correct to exclude
[FRL–9931–40–OAR] 2015. emissions that occurred before a unit’s
DATES: July 28, 2015. monitor certification deadline from the
Allocations of Cross-State Air FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
emissions data used to calculate the
Pollution Rule Allowances From New Questions concerning this action should NUSA allowance allocations. As
Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) explained below, under the regulations
Compliance Year 343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or to such emissions are properly excluded
Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or because they are not emissions during a
AGENCY: Environmental Protection ‘‘control period.’’
Agency (EPA). smith.kenon@epa.gov.
Under the CSAPR FIPs, an eligible
ACTION: Final rule; notice of data SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
unit’s first-round NUSA allowance
availability (NODA). CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state
allocation for a given compliance year is
budget for each of the four CSAPR
generally based on the unit’s emissions
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection emissions trading programs is reserved
‘‘during the immediately preceding
Agency (EPA) is providing notice of as a NUSA from which allowances are
control period’’ (that is, the control
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
emission allowance allocations to allocated to eligible units through an
period in the year before the compliance
certain units under the new unit set- annual one- or two-round process. In a
year).1 An eligible unit’s second-round
aside (NUSA) provisions of the Cross- NODA published in the Federal
NUSA allowance allocation for a given
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Register on June 1, 2015 (80 FR 30988),
federal implementation plans (FIPs) and EPA described the allocation process 1 40 CFR 97.412(a)(4)(i), 97.512(a)(4)(i),
is responding to objections to and provided notice of preliminary 97.612(a)(4)(i), and 97.712(a)(4)(i). First-round
preliminary calculations. EPA has calculations for the first-round 2015 NUSA allocations may be affected by first-round
completed final calculations for the first NUSA allowance allocations. EPA also NUSA over-subscription and rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:34 Jul 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28JYR1.SGM 28JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_45017/page/10.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:28:09
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:28:09
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule will be effective August 27, 2015. | |
| Contact | Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, 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. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 44873 | |
| CFR Citation | 40
CFR
52 40 CFR 81 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR