[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29250-29262]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12352]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275; FRL-9928-11-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: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 16, 2015, the State of North Carolina, through the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Department of Air Quality (NC DAQ), submitted a request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the portion of
North Carolina that is within the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area,'' or ``Area'') to
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. EPA is proposing
to determine that the bi-State Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; to approve the State's plan for maintaining
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the
sub-area motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years
2014 and 2026 for North Carolina portion of the Area, into the SIP; and
to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area to attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also notifying the public of the
status of EPA's adequacy determination for the sub-area MVEBs for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0275, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275,'' 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.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0275. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at 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. 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's proposed
NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion
of the area?
VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for
the North Carolina portion of the area?
VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
IX. Proposed Actions
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take the following three separate but related
actions, one of which involves multiple elements: (1) To determine that
the bi-Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to
approve North Carolina's plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (maintenance plan), including the associated sub-area MVEBs for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, into the
SIP; and (3) to redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination
for the sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte 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. On April 17, 2015, the State of South
Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of Health and Control
(SC DHEC), provided a redesignation request and maintenance plan for
its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA will address South
Carolina's request and maintenance plan in a separate action. These
proposed actions are summarized below and described in greater detail
throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking.
    EPA is also making the preliminarily determination that the bi-
state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
recent air quality data and proposing to approve North Carolina's
maintenance plan for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to keep the bi-state Charlotte Area in
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2026. The maintenance
plan includes 2014 and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for NOX and VOC
for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for
transportation conformity purposes. EPA is proposing to approve these
sub-area MVEBs and incorporate them into the North Carolina SIP.
    EPA also proposes to determine that the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area has met the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA
is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of
Mecklenburg County in its entirety and the following portions of:
     Cabarrus County (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 (Crowders Mountain Township, Dallas
Township, Gastonia Township, Riverbend Township, South Point Township),
     Iredell County (Davidson Township, Coddle Creek Township),
     Lincoln County (Catawba Springs Township, Ironton
Township, Lincolnton Township),
     Rowan County (Atwell Township, China Grove Township,
Franklin Township, Gold Hill Township, Litaker Township, Locke
Township, Providence Township, Salisbury Township, Steele Township,
Unity Township), and
     Union County (Goose Creek Township, Marshville Township,
Monroe Township, Sandy Ridge Township, Vance Township), in North
Carolina from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy
process for the 2014 and 2026 NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The Adequacy
comment period began on March 17, 2015, with EPA's posting of the
availability of North Carolina's submissions on EPA's Adequacy Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#north-carolina). The Adequacy comment period for these sub-area MVEBs closed
on April 16, 2015. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received
through the Adequacy process. Please see section VII of this proposed
rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details
on the sub-area MVEBs.
    In summary, this notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to
North Carolina's April 16, 2015, redesignation request and associated
SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and
the necessary elements described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for
redesignation of the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less
than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. Ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness
requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less
than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part
50.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of complete, quality assured, and
certified ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation
process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012)
using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21,
2012). At the time of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was
classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In the final implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(SIP Implementation

Rule),\1\ EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates
based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an
attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date for
areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone
nonattainment designations. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area's
attainment date is July 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This rule, entitled Implementation of the 2008 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan
Requirements and published at 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), addresses
a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably
available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control
measures (RACM), major new source review (NSR), emission
inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance
with emission control measures in the SIP. This rule also addresses
the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the anti-backsliding
requirements that apply when the 1997 ozone NAAQS are revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that
the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all
requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under
section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the
General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on
April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on
processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

1. ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,''
Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division,
June 18, 1990;
2. ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
3. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
4. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the
``Calcagni Memorandum'');
5. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
6. ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
8. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
9. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
10. ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May
10, 1995.

IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?

    On April 16, 2015, the State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ,
requested that EPA redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA's evaluation indicates that the entire bi-state Charlotte Area has
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area meets the requirements for
redesignation as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the
maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA. As a
result, EPA is proposing to take the three related actions summarized
in section I of this document.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?

    As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in this
action to: (1) Determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) approve the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area's 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan,
including the associated sub-area MVEBs, into the North Carolina SIP;
and (3) redesignate the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The five
redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are
discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of
this section.

Criteria (1)--The Bi-State Charlotte Area Has Attained the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For ozone, an area may be
considered to be attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS if it meets the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.15
and Appendix I of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To
attain the NAAQS, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor
within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. Based on the
data handling and reporting convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the NAAQS are attained if the design value is 0.075 ppm or
below. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).
The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for
the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating
attainment.
    In this action, EPA is preliminarily determining that the bi-state
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA reviewed
ozone monitoring data from monitoring stations in the bi-state
Charlotte Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 2012-2014. These
data have been quality-assured, are recorded in Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS-AQS), and indicate that

the Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The fourth-highest
8-hour ozone values at each monitor for 2012, 2013, 2014, and the 3-
year averages of these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in
Table 1, below.

                                     Table 1--2012-2014 Design Value Concentrations for the Bi-State Charlotte Area
                                                                   [Parts per million]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                4th Highest 8-hour ozone value (ppm)        3-Year design
                                                                                ------------------------------------------------  values (ppm)
                Location                              County                Monitor ID                                                   ---------------
                                                                                2012            2013            2014          2012-2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln County Replacing Iron Station..  Lincoln........................     37-109-0004           0.076           0.064           0.064           0.068
Garinger High School...................  Mecklenburg....................     37-119-0041           0.080           0.067           0.065           0.070
Westinghouse Blvd......................  Mecklenburg....................     37-119-1005           0.073           0.062           0.063           0.066
29 N at Mecklenburg Cab Co.............  Mecklenburg....................     37-119-1009           0.085           0.066           0.068           0.073
Rockwell...............................  Rowan..........................     37-159-0021           0.080           0.062           0.064           0.068
Enochville School *....................  Rowan..........................     37-159-0022           0.077           0.063  ..............  ..............
Monroe Middle School...................  Union..........................     37-179-0003           0.075           0.062           0.067           0.068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monitoring data for 2014 is not available because the monitor was shut down in 2014.

    The 3-year design value for 2012-2014 for the bi-state Charlotte
Area is 0.073 ppm,\2\ which meets the NAAQS. In this action, EPA is
proposing to determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA will not take final action to approve
the redesignation if the 3-year design value exceeds the NAAQS prior to
EPA finalizing the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below,
the State of North Carolina has committed to continue monitoring in
this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The monitor with the highest 3-year design value is
considered the design value for the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criteria (2)--North Carolina Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k) for the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Area; and
Criteria (5)--North Carolina Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA
proposes to find that North Carolina has met all applicable SIP
requirements for the North Carolina portion of the Area under section
110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of
redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that the North
Carolina SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of
the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA
proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to
all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if
applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs
must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were
applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.
a. The North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State Charlotte Area Has Met
All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    General SIP requirements. General SIP elements and requirements are
delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal
of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public
notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of
appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D
requirements (NSR permit programs); provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation
and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing
a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the
designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not
believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's attainment status are applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements
after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements
which are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone
transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7,

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati,
Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
    Title I, Part D, applicable SIP requirements. Section 172(c) of the
CAA sets forth the basic requirements of attainment plans for
nonattainment areas that are required to submit them pursuant to
section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the
CAA, establishes specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas
depending on the area's nonattainment classification. As provided in
Subpart 2, a marginal ozone nonattainment area, such as the bi-state
Charlotte Area, must submit an emissions inventory that complies with
section 172(c)(3), but the specific requirements of section 182(a)
apply in lieu of the demonstration of attainment (and contingency
measures) required by section 172(c). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). A thorough
discussion of the requirements contained in sections 172(c) and 182 can
be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498).
    Section 182(a) Requirements. Section 182(a)(1) requires states to
submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the
boundaries of the ozone nonattainment area. North Carolina provided an
emissions inventory for the bi-state Charlotte Area to EPA in a July 7,
2014 SIP submission. On April 21, 2015, EPA published a direct final
rule to approve this emissions inventory into the SIP.\3\ See 80 FR
22107 (direct final rule) and 80 FR 22147 (associated proposed rule).
North Carolina's section 182(a)(1) inventory must be incorporated into
the SIP before EPA can take final action to approve the State's
redesignation request for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This direct final rule is effective June 22, 2015, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 21, 2015.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal
of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the
public that this rule will not take effect. The associated proposed
rule will remain in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states with ozone nonattainment areas
that were designated prior to the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments
were required to submit, within six months of classification, all rules
and corrections to existing VOC RACT rules that were required under
section 172(b)(3) of the CAA (and related guidance) prior to the 1990
CAA amendments. On June 23, 1994, EPA determined that North Carolina
met the section 182(a)(2) RACT ``fix up'' requirements. See, e.g., 59
FR 32363.
    Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each state with a marginal ozone
nonattainment area that implemented, or was required to implement, an
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program prior to the 1990 CAA
amendments to submit a SIP revision providing for an I/M program no
less stringent than that required prior to the 1990 amendments or
already in the SIP at the time of the amendments, whichever is more
stringent. On June 2, 1995, EPA determined that North Carolina met
requirements of section 182(a)(2)(B). See 60 FR 28720.
    Regarding the permitting and offset requirements of section
182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), North Carolina currently has a
fully-approved part D NSR program in place. However, EPA has determined
that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that
a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the
area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR, because
PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. A more detailed
rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' North Carolina's PSD program will become
applicable in the bi-state Charlotte Area upon redesignation to
attainment.
    Section 182(a)(3) requires states to submit periodic inventories
and emissions statements. Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to
submit a periodic inventory every three years. As discussed below in
the section of this document titled Criteria (4)(e), Verification of
Continued Attainment, the State will continue to update its emissions
inventory at least once every three years. Under section 182(a)(3)(B),
each state with an ozone nonattainment area must submit a SIP revision
requiring emissions statements to be submitted to the state by sources
within that nonattainment area. North Carolina provided a SIP revision
to EPA on July 7, 2014, addressing the section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions
statements requirement, and on April 21, 2015, EPA published a direct
final rule to approve this SIP revision.\4\ See 80 FR 22107 (direct
final rule) and 80 FR 22147 (associated proposed rule). North
Carolina's emissions statements must be incorporated into the SIP
before EPA can take final action to approve the State's redesignation
request for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This direct final rule is effective June 22, 2015, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 21, 2015.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal
of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the
public that this rule will not take effect. The associated proposed
rule will remain in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that
are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States
Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
    EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements \5\ as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d)
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation
and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this
interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (redesignation
of Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, North Carolina has an approved
conformity SIP for the Charlotte Area. See 78 FR 73266 (February 24,
2014). Thus, the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions
to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal criteria and procedures for
determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity
SIPs are different from the MVEBs that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. The North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State Charlotte Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    EPA has fully approved the applicable North Carolina SIP for the
bi-state

Charlotte Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements
applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP
approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum
at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d
984, 989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action (see
68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein). North Carolina has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times,
provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 5703 (February 6, 2012).
    As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements that
are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked to
an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation. EPA has approved all part D requirements
applicable for purposes of this redesignation. As noted above, this
action to propose approval of North Carolina's redesignation request
for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area is
contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve the July, 7, 2014,
emissions inventory and emissions statements SIP revision, which was
published as direct final and proposed rules on April 21, 2015. See 80
FR 22107 and 80 FR 22147.

Criteria (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Bi-State Charlotte
Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that
North Carolina has demonstrated that the observed air quality
improvement in the bi-state Charlotte Area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from Federal measures and
from state measures adopted into the SIP. EPA does not have any
information to suggest that the decrease in ozone concentrations in the
bi-state Charlotte Area is due to unusually favorable meteorological
conditions.
    State and Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in
permanent emission reductions. Most of these emission reductions are
enforceable through regulations. A few non-regulatory measures also
result in emission reductions. The state and local measures that have
been implemented to date and relied upon by North Carolina to
demonstrate attainment and/or maintenance include the Clean Air Bill I/
M program and North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act. These measures
are approved in the federally-approved SIP and thus are permanent and
enforceable. The Federal measures that have been implemented include
the following:
    Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards. Implementation began in 2004 and
requires all passenger vehicles in any manufacturer's fleet to meet an
average standard of 0.07 grams of NOX per mile.
Additionally, in January 2006 the sulfur content of gasoline was
required to be on average 30 ppm which assists in lowering the
NOX emissions. Most gasoline sold in North Carolina prior to
January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 300 ppm.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ North Carolina also identified Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emissions and Fuel Standards as a federal measure. EPA issued this
rule in April 28, 2014, which applies to light duty passenger cars
and trucks. EPA promulgated this rule to reduce air pollution from
new passenger cars and trucks beginning in 2017. Tier 3 emission
standards will lower sulfur content of gasoline and lower the
emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Large non-road diesel engines rule. This rule was promulgated in
2004, and is being phased in between 2008 through 2014. This rule will
also reduce the sulfur content in the nonroad diesel fuel. When fully
implemented, this rule will reduce NOX, VOC, particulate
matter, and carbon monoxide. These emission reductions are federally
enforceable. EPA issued this rule in June 2004, which applies to diesel
engines used in industries, such as construction, agriculture, and
mining. It is estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide. The non-road diesel rule was fully implemented by
2010.
    Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards. EPA
issued this rule in January 2001 (66 FR 5002). This rule includes
standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into
effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007, which further
reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm, leading to
additional reductions in combustion NOX and VOC emissions.
This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in
NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses.
    Medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel consumption and GHG standards.
These standards require on-road vehicles to achieve a 7 percent to 20
percent reduction in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption by
2018. The decrease in fuel consumption will result in a 7 percent to 20
percent decrease in NOX emissions.
    Nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards.
The nonroad spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective
in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon
monoxide from groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These
engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts
and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g.,
off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational
marine diesel engines sold in the United States and imported after the
effective date of these standards. When all of the nonroad spark-
ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an
overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in
NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions
are expected by 2020. These controls reduce ambient concentrations of
ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.
    National Program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Fuel
Economy Standards. The federal GHG and fuel economy standards apply to
light-duty cars and trucks in model years 2012-2016 (phase 1) and 2017-
2025 (phase 2). The final standards are projected to result in an
average industry fleet-wide level of 163 grams/mile of carbon dioxide
(CO2) which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if
achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. The fuel
economy standards result in less fuel being consumed, and therefore
less NOX emissions released.
    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Consent Decree/Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement. On April 14, 2011, TVA entered into a consent
decree with Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and North Carolina to resolve
allegations of CAA violations at TVA's coal-fired power plants. The
relief obtained in this consent decree was also secured in a Federal
Facilities Compliance Agreement (FFCA) between EPA and TVA. The consent
decree and FFCA establish system-wide caps on NOX and
SO2 emissions at TVA's coal-fired facilities, declining to
permanent levels of 52,000 tons of NOX in 2018 and

110,000 tons of SO2 in 2019, and require TVA to meet
specific control requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes that there are no sources covered by the consent
decree/FFCA in North Carolina. Although the bi-state Charlotte Area
may get residual benefits from the implementation of consent decree/
FFCA, EPA does not believe these measures are needed for the bi-
state Charlotte Area to attain or maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).\8\ The RICE NESHAP is
expected to result in a small decrease in VOC emissions. RICE owners
and operators had to comply with the NESHAP by May 3, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ North Carolina also identified the NESHAP for industrial,
commercial and institutional boilers as a federal measure. This
NESHAP is also expected to result in a small decrease in VOC
emissions. Boilers must comply with the NESHAP by January 31, 2016,
for all states except North Carolina which has a compliance date in
May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utility Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). On February 16, 2012, EPA promulgated
maximum achievable control technology regulations for coal- and oil-
fired EGUs, intended to reduce hazardous air pollutants emissions from
EGUs. Although the MATS rule is not targeted at NOX
emissions, it is expected to result in additional NOX
reductions due to the retirement of older coal-fired units.
    NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued the
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone
pollution, and providing a mechanism (the NOX Budget Trading
Program) that states could use to achieve those reductions. Affected
states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning
in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. By the end of 2008, ozone
season emissions from sources subject to the NOX SIP Call
dropped by 62 percent from 2000 emissions levels. All NOX
SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy their obligations
under the NOX SIP Call; the NOX SIP Call
reduction requirements are being met; and EPA will continue to enforce
the requirements of the NOX SIP Call. Emission reductions
resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX
SIP Call are therefore permanent and enforceable for the purposes of
this action. There are four facilities located within the North
Carolina portion of the Area that are subject to the NOX SIP
Call. These facilities are located in Gaston, Lincoln, and Rowan
Counties. Two coal-fired power plants (Buck and Riverbend) were retired
on April 1, 2013, which resulted in additional emissions reductions.
There is also a facility west of the Area, Cliffside, located in
Cleveland County, and a facility north of the Area, Marshall, located
in Catawba County which are also subject to the NOX SIP
Call.
    CAIR/CSAPR. CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states,
including North Carolina. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). EPA approved
North Carolina's CAIR regulations into the North Carolina SIP on
October 5, 2007. See 72 FR 56914. In 2009, the CAIR ozone season
NOX trading program superseded the NOX Budget
Trading Program, although the emission reduction obligations of the
NOX SIP Call were not rescinded. See 40 CFR 51.121(r) and
51.123(aa). In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR,
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C.
Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to address interstate transport
of emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace
CAIR. CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and
NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28
states in the Eastern United States.
    Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs would have superseded the CAIR cap
and trade programs. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of
CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order
staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to
continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and once again ordering continued
implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit subsequently denied EPA's
petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and
other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24,
2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).
    On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C.
Circuit's decision regarding CSAPR, and remanded that decision to the
D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its
ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014).
EPA moved to have the stay of CSAPR lifted in light of the Supreme
Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-
1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In its
motion, EPA asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines
by three years so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and
2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets
apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23,
2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay of
CSAPR which was imposed on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order
at 3. On December 3, 2014, EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify
how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's
order granting EPA's motion requesting lifting the stay and tolling the
rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final
rulemaking). Consistent with that rule, EPA began implementing CSAPR on
January 1, 2015. EPA expects that the implementation of CSAPR will
preserve the reductions achieved by CAIR and result in additional
SO2 and NOX emission reductions throughout the
maintenance period.
    As mentioned above, the State measures that have been implemented
include the following:
    Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program. In
1999, the North Carolina State Legislation passed the Clean Air Bill
that expanded the on-road vehicle I/M program from 9 to 48 counties. It
was phased-in in the Charlotte nonattainment area from July 1, 2002,
through January 1, 2004. This program reduces NOX, VOC, and
CO emissions. The I/M program was submitted to EPA for adoption into
the SIP in August 2002 and was federally approved in October 2002.
Therefore, these emission reductions are both state and federally
enforceable.
    On February 5, 2015, EPA approved a change to North Carolina's I/M
rules triggered by a state law which exempted plug-in vehicles and the
three newest model year vehicles with less than 70,000 miles on their
odometers from emission inspection in all areas in North

Carolina where I/M is required. In North Carolina's section 110(l)
demonstration, the State showed that the change in the compliance rate
from 95 percent to 96 percent more than compensates for the
NOX and VOC emissions increase. EPA-approved change to the
I/M rules was effective March 9, 2015, and are state and federally
enforceable.
    Clean Smokestacks Act. This state law requires coal-fired power
plants to reduce annual NOX emissions by 77 percent by 2009,
and to reduce annual SO2 emissions by 49 percent by 2009 and
73 percent by 2013. This law set a NOX emissions cap of
56,000 tons/year for 2009 and SO2 emissions caps of 250,000
tons/year and 130,000 tons/year for 2009 and 2013, respectively. The
public utilities cannot meet these emission caps by purchasing emission
credits. EPA approved the statewide emissions caps as part of the North
Carolina SIP on September 26, 2011. In 2013, the power plants subject
to this law had combined NOX emissions of 38,857 tons per
year, well below the 56,000 tons per year cap. The emissions cap has
been met in all subsequent years as well and is enforceable at both the
federal and state level.

Criteria (4)--The North Carolina Portion of the Area Has a Fully
Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, NC DAQ submitted a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10
years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA
believes that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval
under section 175A of the CAA.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction
of any future 2008 8-hour ozone violations. The Calcagni Memorandum
provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements:
The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency
plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA has preliminarily
determined that North Carolina's maintenance plan includes all the
necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision
to the North Carolina SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    EPA is proposing to determine that the bi-state Charlotte Area has
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality-assured
monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2012-2014. North Carolina
selected 2014 as the base year (i.e., attainment emissions inventory
year) for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for
NOX and VOC, for which projected emissions could be
developed for 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026. The attainment inventory
identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to
attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. North Carolina began development of
the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions
inventory for the State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The
projected summer day emission inventories have been estimated using
projected rates of growth in population, traffic, economic activity,
and other parameters. Naturally occurring emissions (i.e., biogenic
emissions) are not included in the emissions inventory comparison, as
these emissions are outside the State's control. In addition to
comparing the final year of the plan (2026) to the base year (2014),
North Carolina compared interim years to the baseline to demonstrate
that these years are also expected to show continued maintenance of the
2008 8-hour ozone standard.
    The emissions inventory is composed of four major types of sources:
Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The complete
descriptions of how the inventories were developed are discussed in the
Appendix B of the April 16, 2015, submittal, which can be found in the
docket for this action. Point source emissions are tabulated from data
collected by direct on-site measurements of emissions or from mass
balance calculations utilizing emission factors from EPA's AP-42 or
stack test results. For each projected year's inventory, point sources
are adjusted by growth factors based on Standard Industrial
Classification codes generated using growth patterns obtained from
County Business Patterns. For the electric generating utility sources,
the estimated projected future year emissions were based on information
provided by the utility company. For the sources that report to the
EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, the actual 2014 average July day
emissions were used. For the other Title V sources, the latest data
available (2013) was used to represent 2014 base year emissions. For
sources emitting less than 25 tons per year and subject to the
emissions statement requirements, the most recently reported data
(2013) was used to represent 2014 base year emissions. For the small
sources that only report emissions every 5 years, the most recently
reported data (2013) was used to represent 2014 base year emission,
since emissions from these sources do not vary much from year to year.
Rail yard and airport emissions reported were obtained from the EPA's
2011 National Emission Inventory.
    For area sources, emissions are estimated by multiplying an
emission factor by some known indicator of collective activity such as
production, number of employees, or population. For each projected
year's inventory, area source emissions are changed by population
growth, projected production growth, or estimated employment growth.
    The non-road mobile sources emissions are calculated using EPA's
NONROAD2008a model, with the exception of the railroad locomotives
which were estimated by taking activity and multiplying by an emission
factor. For each projected year's inventory, the emissions are
estimated using EPA's NONROAD2008a model with activity input such as
projected landing and takeoff data for aircraft.
    For on-road mobile sources, EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES2014) mobile model is run to generate emissions. The MOVES2014
model includes the road class vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an input
file and can directly output the estimated emissions. For each
projected year's inventory, the on-road mobile sources emissions are
calculated by running the MOVES mobile model for the future year with
the projected VMT to generate emissions that take into consideration
expected Federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels.

    The 2014 NOX and VOC emissions for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, as well as the emissions for
other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are
summarized in Tables 2 through 4 of the following subsection discussing
the maintenance demonstration. See Appendix B of the April 16, 2015,
submission for more detailed information on the emissions inventory.
c. Maintenance Demonstration
    The maintenance plan associated with the redesignation request
includes a maintenance demonstration that:
    (i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by providing information to support the demonstration that
current and future emissions of NOX and VOC remain at or
below 2014 emissions levels.
    (ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year and includes future emissions
inventory projections for 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026.
    (iii) Identifies an ``out year'' at least 10 years after the time
necessary for EPA to review and approve the maintenance plan. Per 40
CFR part 93, NOX and VOC MVEBs were established for the last
year (2026) of the maintenance plan (see section VII below).
Additionally, NC DAQ opted to establish sub-area MVEBs for an interim
year (2014).
    (iv) Provides actual (2014) and projected emissions inventories, in
tons per day (tpd), for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area, as shown in Tables 2 through 4, below.

     Table 2--Actual and Projected Annual NOX Emissions (tpd) for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State
                                                 Charlotte Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                    2014            2015            2018            2022            2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................           32.38           34.47           29.28           36.33           26.75
Area............................           11.40           11.28           11.28           11.31           11.28
Non-road........................           26.26           24.35           19.79           16.07           14.03
On-road.........................           60.15           53.97           33.92           22.94           15.47
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          130.18          124.07           94.27           86.65           67.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 3--Actual and Projected Annual VOC Emissions (tpd) for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State
                                                 Charlotte Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                    2014            2015            2018            2022            2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................           12.03           12.42           13.62           14.36           15.33
Area............................           47.88           48.26           49.39           50.87           52.28
Non-road........................           18.89           18.17           17.08           17.04           17.55
On-road.........................           34.32           31.82           23.94           19.16           14.98
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          113.12          110.67          104.03          101.43          100.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 4--Emission Estimates for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-
                          State Charlotte Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         VOC       NOX
                        Year                            (tpd)     (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014................................................    113.12    130.18
2015................................................    110.67    124.07
2018................................................    104.03     94.27
2022................................................    101.43     86.65
2026................................................    100.14     67.53
                                                     -------------------
  Difference from 2014 to 2026......................    -12.98    -62.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to
nonattainment, such as the bi-state Charlotte Area, if the future
projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the
baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air
quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. North Carolina
has projected emissions as described previously and determined that
emissions in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area
will remain below those in the attainment year inventory for the
duration of the maintenance plan.
    As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety
margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions
(from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is
the level of emissions during one of the years in which the area met
the NAAQS. North Carolina selected 2014 as the attainment emissions
inventory year for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area. North Carolina calculated safety margins in its submittal for
years 2015, 2018, 2022, and 2026. Because the initial sub-area MVEB
year of 2014 is also the base year for the maintenance plan inventory,
there is no safety margin, therefore, no adjustments were made to the
sub-area MVEBs for 2014. The State has allocated a portion of the 2026
safety margin to the 2026 sub-area MVEBs for the bi-state Charlotte
Area.

 Table 5--Safety Margins for the North Carolina Portion of the Bi-State
                             Charlotte Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         VOC       NOX
                        Year                            (tpd)     (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015................................................     -2.45     -6.11
2018................................................     -9.09    -35.91
2022................................................    -11.69    -43.53
2026................................................    -12.98    -62.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State has decided to allocate a portion of the 2026 safety
margin to the 2026 sub-area MVEBs to allow for unanticipated growth in
VMT, changes and uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, etc., that
will influence the emission estimations. NC DAQ developed and
implemented a five-step approach for determining a factor to use to
calculate the amount of safety margin to apply to the sub-area MVEBs.
Based on this approach, 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. This allocation
and the resulting available safety margin for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area are discussed further in section
VI of this proposed rulemaking along with the sub-area MVEBs to be used
for transportation conformity proposes.
d. Monitoring Network
    There are currently seven monitors measuring ozone in the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. NC DAQ operates four
of the monitors in the Area, whereas the Mecklenburg County Air Quality
(MCAQ) Office operates three of the monitors in Mecklenburg County. The
State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, has committed to continue
operation of all monitors in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and have thus
addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA approved North Carolina's
monitoring plan on November 25, 2013.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    The State of North Carolina, through NC DAQ, has the legal
authority to enforce and implement the maintenance plan for the North
Carolina portion of the Area. This includes the authority to adopt,
implement, and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency
measures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainment
problems.
    Large stationary sources are required to submit an emissions
inventory annually to NC DAQ or MCAQ. NC DAQ commits to review these
emissions inventories to determine if any unexpected growth in
NOX emissions in the Area may endanger the maintenance of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, as new VMT data are provided
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT), NC DAQ
commits to review these data and determine if any unexpected growth in
VMT may endanger the maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Additionally, under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(CERR) and Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), NC DAQ is
required to develop a comprehensive, annual, statewide emissions
inventory every three years that is due twelve to eighteen months after
the completion of the inventory year. The AERR inventory years match
the base year and final year of the inventory for the maintenance plan,
and are within one or two years of the interim inventory years of the
maintenance plan. Therefore, NC DAQ commits to compare the CERR and
AERR inventories as they are developed with the maintenance plan to
determine if additional steps are necessary for continued maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this Area.
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state
should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when
the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures
with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with
section 175A(d).
    In the April 16, 2015, submittal, North Carolina affirms that all
programs instituted by the State and EPA will remain enforceable and
that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following
the redesignation of the Area. The contingency plan included in the
submittal includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency
measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing
appropriate control measures. The primary trigger of the contingency
plan will be a violation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (i.e., when the
three-year average of the 4th highest values is equal to or greater
than 0.076 ppm at a monitor in the Area). The trigger date will be 60
days from the date that the State observes a 4th highest value that,
when averaged with the two previous ozone seasons' fourth highest
values, would result in a three-year average equal to or greater than
0.076 ppm.
    The secondary trigger will apply where no actual violation of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS has occurred, but where the State finds
monitored ozone levels indicating that an actual ozone NAAQS violation
may be imminent. A pattern will be deemed to exist when there are two
consecutive ozone seasons in which the 4th highest values are 0.076 ppm
or greater at a single monitor within the Area. The trigger date will
be 60 days from the date that the State observes a 4th highest value of
0.076 ppm or greater at a monitor for which the previous season had a
4th highest value of 0.076 ppm or greater.
    Once the primary or secondary trigger is activated, the Planning
Section of the NC DAQ, in consultation with SC DHEC and MCAQ, shall
commence analyses including trajectory analyses of high ozone days and
an emissions inventory assessment to determine those emission control
measures that will be required for attaining or maintaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. By May 1 of the year following the ozone season in
which the primary or secondary trigger has been activated, North
Carolina will complete sufficient analyses to begin adoption of
necessary rules for ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The rules would become State effective by the
following January 1, unless legislative review is required.
    At least one of the following contingency measures will be adopted
and implemented upon a primary triggering event:
     NOX Reasonably Available Control Technology on
stationary sources with a potential to emit less than 100 tons per year
in the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte nonattainment area;
     diesel inspection and maintenance program;
     implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including
incentives for performing retrofits;
     additional controls in upwind areas.
    The NC DAQ commits to implement within 24 months of a primary or
secondary trigger,\9\ at least one of the control measures listed above
or other contingency measures that may be determined to be more
appropriate based on the analyses performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On May 4, 2015, Sheila Holman, Director of NC DENR's
Division of Air Quality sent an email to Lynorae Benjamin, Chief of
the Region 4 EPA's Air Regulatory Management Section to confirm that
the State will address and correct any violation of the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and within 18-24 months
from a trigger activation. A copy of this clarification email is in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina has also developed a tertiary trigger that will be a
first alert as to a potential air quality problem on the horizon. This
trigger will be activated when a monitor in the Area has a 4th highest
value of 0.076 ppm or greater, starting the first year after the
maintenance plan has been approved. The trigger date will be 60 days
from the date that the State observes a 4th highest value of 0.076 ppm
or greater at any monitor.
    Once the tertiary trigger is activated, the Planning Section of the
NC DAQ, in consultation with the SC DHEC and

MCAQ, shall commence analyses including meteorological evaluation,
trajectory analyses of high ozone days, and emissions inventory
assessment to understand why a 4th highest exceedance of the standard
has occurred. Once the analyses are completed, the NC DAQ will work
with SC DHEC, MCAQ and the local air awareness program to develop an
outreach plan identifying any additional voluntary measures that can be
implemented. If the 4th highest exceedance occurs early in the season,
the NC DAQ will work with entities identified in the outreach plan to
determine if the measures can be implemented during the current season;
otherwise, NC DAQ will work with SC DHEC, MCAQ, and the local air
awareness coordinator to implement the plan for the following ozone
season.
    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a maintenance plan: The attainment
emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan.
Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by North
Carolina for the State's portion of the Area meets the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

VI. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's proposed NOX and VOC
sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the area?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must
``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air
quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation
plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional
emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for
implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a
requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas
are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but
have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance
plan for that NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration
requirements) and maintenance plans create MVEBs (or in this case sub-
area MVEBs) for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address
pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be
established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may
adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the
total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR
93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule
(58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in
the SIP and how to revise the MVEB.
    As part of the interagency consultation process on setting sub-area
MVEBs, the DAQ held three conference calls with the Charlotte Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO)--Rocky River Rural
Planning Organization (RRRPO), Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan
Planning Organization (GCLMPO), and Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CRMPO) to determine what years to set sub-area
MVEBs for the Charlotte maintenance plan. According to the
transportation conformity rule, a maintenance plan must establish MVEBs
for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case, 2026). See 40
CFR 93.118. The consensus formed during the interagency consultation
process was that another MVEB should be set for the Charlotte
maintenance plan base year of 2014.
    Accordingly, NC DAQ established separate sub-area MVEBs based on
the latest Metropolitan Planning Organization jurisdictional boundaries
such that sub-area MVEBs are established for the CRMPO (Cabarrus and
Rowan Counties), for the CRTPO-RRRPO (Iredell, Mecklenburg and Union
Counties), and for the GCLMPO (Gaston and Lincoln Counties) subareas.
Although Cleveland County is included in the GCLMPO, it is not included
in the Charlotte ozone nonattainment area.
    Tables 6 through 8 below provide the NOX and VOC sub-
area MVEBs in kilograms per day (kg/day),\10\ for 2014 and 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The conversion to kilograms used the actual emissions
reported in the MOVES model. The conversion was done utilizing the
``CONVERT'' function in an EXCEL spreadsheet. The conversion factor
is 907.1847.

                                          Table 6--CRMPO 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 7--GCLMPO 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 8--CRTPO-RRRPO 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion
of the available 2026 safety margin to the NOX and VOC sub-
area MVEBs for 2026. As discussed in section VI of this proposed
rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment
level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of
emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment
level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in
which the area met the NAAQS. As discussed above, North Carolina has
selected 2014 as the base year.
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the sub-area
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2014 and 2026 for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA believes
that the Area maintains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions
at the levels of the budgets. Once the sub-area MVEBs for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area are approved or found
adequate (whichever is completed first), they must be used for future
conformity determinations. After thorough review, EPA has preliminary
determined that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and is proposing to approve the budgets because
they are consistent with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2026.

VII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
Proposed NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for the North
Carolina portion of the area?

    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy
consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission,
a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process
for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999,
guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999,
Conformity Court Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify the
adequacy process in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for
the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional
information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity
purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled, ``Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional
Rule Changes,'' 68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
    As discussed earlier, North Carolina's maintenance plan includes
NOX and VOC sub-arear MVEBs for the North Carolina portion
of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 2014, an interim year of the
maintenance plan, and 2026, the last year of the maintenance plan. EPA
is reviewing the NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs through the
adequacy process. The North Carolina bi-state Charlotte Area
NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs, opened for public comment on
EPA's adequacy Web site on March 17, 2015, found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public
comment period on adequacy for the sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area closed on
April 16, 2015. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received during
EPA's adequacy process for the sub-area MVEBs associated with North
Carolina's maintenance plan.
    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2014
and 2026 sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near
future by completing the adequacy process that was started on March 17,
2015. After EPA finds the 2014 and 2026 sub-area MVEBs adequate or
approves them, the new sub-area MVEBs for NOX and VOC must
be used for future transportation conformity determinations. For
required regional emissions analysis years that involve 2014 through
2026, the applicable 2014 sub-area MVEBs will be used and for 2026 and
beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2026 sub-area MVEBs
established in the maintenance plan, as defined in section VI of this
proposed rulemaking.

VIII. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take
final

action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of
North Carolina's redesignation request would change the legal
designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety, and the portion of
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties within the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, as found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's associated SIP revision would also
incorporate a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026 into the SIP. This maintenance
plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential
violations. The maintenance plan also establishes NOX and
VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area. The sub-area MVEBs are listed in Tables 6
through 8 in Section VI. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of
the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the newly-established
NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for the North
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.

IX. Proposed Actions

    EPA is taking three separate but related actions regarding the
redesignation and maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
    EPA proposes to determine that the Charlotte Area has attained the
2008 8-hour ozone standard by the July 20, 2015, required attainment
date. EPA is proposing to determine that the entire 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. EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance
plan for the North Carolina portion of the Area, including the
NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026, into the North
Carolina SIP (under CAA section 175A). The maintenance plan
demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and that the budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria
contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as part of this
action, EPA is describing the status of its adequacy determination for
the NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the
effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the
publication date for the final rule for this action, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC sub-area MVEBs pursuant to
40 CFR 93.104(e).
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to determine that the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area has met the criteria under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is proposing to
approve North Carolina's redesignation request for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. If finalized, approval of the
redesignation request would change the official designation of
Mecklenburg County in its entirety, and a portion of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in North Carolina, as found
at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability 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, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 significant regulatory actions 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
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

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.

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

    Dated: May 13, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-12352 Filed 5-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P