[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19197-19202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9248]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[NC-061-1-6815; FRL-5191-3]
Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of North
Carolina
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 12, 1993, the State of North Carolina through the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
submitted a maintenance plan and a request to redesignate the
Charlotte-Gastonia area from nonattainment to attainment for ozone
(O3). Subsequently on December 16, 1994, and January 6, 1995, the
State submitted supplementary information which included refined
modeling and identification of the future reductions needed to maintain
the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for O3. The
Charlotte-Gastonia O3 nonattainment area includes Mecklenburg and
Gaston Counties. Under the Clean Air Act, designations can be changed
if sufficient data are available to warrant such changes. In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's
submittal because it will meet the maintenance plan and redesignation
requirements. The approved maintenance plan will become a federally
enforceable part of North Carolina's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the moderate nonattainment area. In this action, EPA is also
proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's 1990 baseline
emissions inventory because it meets EPA's requirements regarding the
approval on baseline emission inventories.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by May 17, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Kay
Prince, at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
State of North Carolina, Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.
Environmental Management Division, Mecklenburg County Department of
Environmental Protection, 700 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28202-2236.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Prince, Regulatory Planning and
Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555 extension 4221. Reference file NC-061-1-6815.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399,
codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q). Under section 107(d)(1)(C), EPA
designated Mecklenburg County of the Charlotte-Gastonia area as
nonattainment by operation of law with respect to O3 because the
area was designated nonattainment immediately before November 15, 1990.
The nonattainment area was expanded to include Gaston County per
section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) (See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991) and 57 FR 56762
(Nov. 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR 81.318.) The area was classified as
moderate.
The moderate nonattainment area more recently has ambient
monitoring data that show no violations of the O3 NAAQS, during
the period from 1990 through 1993. Therefore, in an effort to comply
with the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) and to ensure continued
attainment of the NAAQS, on November 12, 1993, the State of North
Carolina submitted an O3 maintenance plan and requested
redesignation of the area to attainment with respect to the O3
NAAQS. On January 24, 1994, Region 4 determined that the information
received from the State constituted a complete redesignation request
under the general completeness criteria of 40 CFR 51, appendix V,
sections 2.1 and 2.2. Subsequently, on December 16, 1994, and January
6, 1995, the State submitted additional information that refined the
modeling and clarified the future measures needed to ensure maintenance
of the O3 NAAQS.
The North Carolina redesignation request for the Charlotte-Gastonia
moderate O3 nonattainment area meets the five requirements of
section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation to attainment. The following is
a brief description of how the State of North Carolina has fulfilled
each of these requirements. Because the maintenance plan is a critical
element of the redesignation request, EPA will discuss its evaluation
of the maintenance plan under its analysis of the redesignation
request.
1. The Area Must Have Attained the O3 NAAQS
The State of North Carolina's request is based on an analysis of
quality assured ambient air quality monitoring data, which is relevant
to the maintenance plan and to the redesignation request. Most recent
ambient air quality monitoring data for calendar year 1990 through
calendar year 1993 show an expected exceedance rate of less than 1.0
per year of the O3 NAAQS in the nonattainment area (See 40 CFR
50.9 and appendix H). The area has continued to demonstrate attainment
to date. Because the nonattainment area has complete quality-assured
data showing no violations of the O3 NAAQS over the most recent
consecutive three calendar year period, the area has met the first
component of attainment of the O3 NAAQS. The State of North
Carolina has also met the second component of attainment of the O3
NAAQS by committing to continue monitoring the moderate nonattainment
area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D of the CAA
On April 17, 1980, August 27, 1981, October 11, 1985, November 19,
1986, and December 19, 1986, EPA fully approved North Carolina's SIP as
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D of the 1977
CAA (45 FR 26038, 46 FR 43137, 50 FR 41501, 51 FR 41786, and 51 FR
45468). The approved control strategy did not result in attainment of
NAAQS for O3 prior to the 1990 CAA. Additionally, the amended CAA
revised section 182(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2) and, under part
[[Page 19198]] D, revised section 172 and added new requirements for
all nonattainment areas. Therefore, for purposes of redesignation, to
meet the requirement that the SIP contain all applicable requirements
under the CAA, EPA reviewed the North Carolina SIP and ensures that it
contains all measures due under the amended CAA prior to or at the time
the State of North Carolina submitted its redesignation request.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that, for an area to be redesignated,
an area must have met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
Part D. The USEPA interprets section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that for a
redesignation to be approved, the State must have met all requirements
that applied to the subject area prior to or at the time of the
submission of a complete redesignation request. Requirements of the Act
that come due subsequently continue to be applicable to the area at
those later dates (see section 175A(c)) and, if the redesignation of
the area is disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill those
requirements.
A. Section 110 Requirements
Although section 110 was amended by the CAA, the North Carolina SIP
for the moderate nonattainment area meets the requirements of amended
section 110(a)(2). A number of the requirements did not change in
substance and, therefore, EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP met
these requirements. EPA has analyzed the SIP and determined that it is
consistent with the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2).
B. Part D Requirements
Before the moderate nonattainment area may be redesignated to
attainment, the State must have fulfilled the applicable requirements
of part D. Under part D, an area's classification indicates the
requirements to which it will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets
forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas, classified as well as nonclassifiable. Subpart 2
of part D establishes additional requirements for O3 nonattainment
areas classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As described in the
General Preamble for the Implementation of title I, specific
requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart's general provisions (57
FR 13501 (April 16, 1992)). The Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area
is classified as moderate (See 56 FR 56694, codified at 40 CFR 81.318).
The State of North Carolina submitted the request for redesignation of
the moderate nonattainment area on November 12, 1993. Therefore, in
order to be redesignated to attainment, the State of North Carolina
must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D,
specifically sections 172(c) and 176, and is also required to meet the
applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D, specifically sections
182(a) and (b).
a. Subpart 1 of Part D. Section 172(c) sets forth general
requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Under section
172(b), the section 172(c) requirements are applicable as determined by
the Administrator, but no later than 3 years after an area has been
designated as nonattainment under the amended CAA. Furthermore, as
noted above, some of these section 172(c) requirements are superseded
by more specific requirements in subpart 2 of part D. In the case of
the Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area, the State has satisfied all
of the section 172(c) requirements necessary for the area to be
redesignated upon the basis of the November 12, 1993, redesignation
request.
EPA has determined that the section 172(c)(2) reasonable further
progress (RFP) requirement (with parallel requirements for a moderate
ozone nonattainment area under subpart 2 of part D, due November 15,
1993) was not applicable as the State of North Carolina submitted this
redesignation request on November 12, 1993. Also the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures and additional section 172(c)(1) non-RACT
reasonable available control measures (RACM) beyond what may already be
required in the SIP are no longer necessary, since no earlier date was
set for these measures and as RFP was not due until November 15, 1993.
The section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement has been met
by the submission of the 1990 base year inventory required under
subpart 2 of part D, section 182(a)(1), which EPA is proposing to
approve in this action.
The State of North Carolina has a fully-approved NSR program
meeting the requirements of section 182(b)(5). Therefore, the section
172(c)(5) requirement has been met.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions,
before they are taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the
applicable state SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the
conformity revisions to be submitted by states must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required EPA to promulgate.
Congress provided for the state revisions to be submitted one year
after the date for promulgation of final EPA conformity regulations.
When that date passed without such promulgation, EPA's General Preamble
for the implementation of Title I informed states that its conformity
regulations would establish a submittal date [see 57 FR 13498t 13557
(April 16, 1992)].
The EPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations on
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and general conformity regulations on
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that
states adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in
the SIP for areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance
plan approved under CAA section 175A. Pursuant to Sec. 51.396 of the
transportation conformity rule and Sec. 51.851 of the general
conformity rule, the State of North Carolina is required to submit SIP
revisions containing transportation and general conformity criteria and
procedures consistent with those established in the Federal rule by
November 25, 1994 and December 1, 1994, respectively. Because the
deadlines for these submittals had not come due at the time of the
submission of the redesignation request, they are not applicable
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)(V) and, thus, do not affect
approval of this redesignation request. The State of North Carolina
submitted a SIP revision which contains the required conformity
provisions on March 3, 1995.
b. Subpart 2 of Part D--Section 182. The CAA was amended on
November 15, 1990, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42
U.S.C. 7401-7671q. EPA was required to classify O3 nonattainment
areas according to the severity of their problem. On November 6, 1991
(56 FR 56694), the Charlotte-Gastonia area was designated as moderate
O3 nonattainment. Because the Charlotte-Gastonia area is a
moderate O3 nonattainment area, it is required to have met the
requirements of sections 182(a), (b) and (f) of the CAA. EPA has
analyzed the SIP and determined which requirements have been met and
for which requirements further action is required. In the instances
where further action is required, SIP revisions meeting those
requirements must be fully approved in order for EPA to find that all
the applicable requirements of the CAA [[Page 19199]] have been met.
Thus, final approval of this redesignation is contingent upon the final
approval of the additional SIP submittals described below.
(1) Section 182(a)(1)--Emissions Inventory
Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA required an inventory of all actual
emissions from all sources, as described in section 172(c)(3) to be
submitted by November 15, 1992. On November 13, 1992, the State
submitted an emission inventory for the Charlotte-Gastonia area. EPA is
proposing to approve the inventory in this notice. Final approval of
this redesignation is contingent on final approval of the emissions
inventory.
(2) Section 182(a)(2), 182(b)(2)--Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)
Subsequent to the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Mecklenburg County
was designated as not meeting the O3 NAAQS on March 3, 1978 (43 FR
8962). The State was subsequently required to revise its O3 SIP
for this area to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D
of the 1977 Clean Air Act. On April 17, 1980, August 27, 1981, October
11, 1985, November 19, 1986, and December 19, 1986, EPA fully approved
North Carolina's SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
and part D of the 1977 CAA (45 FR 26038, 46 FR 43137, 50 FR 41501, 51
FR 41786, and 51 FR 45468). On December 31, 1987, EPA deemed that this
control strategy had not resulted in the attainment of the NAAQS for
O3 in the Charlotte-Gastonia area. Consequently, Greer C. Tidwell,
Region 4 Regional Administrator, sent a letter to James G. Martin,
Governor of North Carolina, on May 26, 1988. This letter, pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 CAA, notified North Carolina that the
SIP was substantially inadequate to achieve the NAAQS for O3 in
Charlotte and called upon the State to revise the SIP.
The 1990 CAA amended section 182(a)(2)(A), and Congress statutorily
adopted the requirement that O3 nonattainment areas correct their
deficient RACT rules for O3 (RACT Fix-ups). Areas designated
nonattainment before amendment of the CAA and which retained that
designation and were classified as marginal or above as of enactment
are required to meet the RACT Fix-ups requirement. Under section
182(a)(2)(A), those areas were required by May 15, 1991, to correct
RACT regulations as required under pre-amendment guidance.1 The
SIP call letters interpreted that guidance and indicated corrections
necessary for specific nonattainment areas. Charlotte was previously
subject to RACT requirements for ozone. Therefore, this area is subject
to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991, deadline.
\1\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
the VOC RACT portions of the Post-87 policy, 52 FR 45044 (Nov. 24,
1987); the Bluebook, ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,
Deficiencies and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November
24, 1987 Federal Register Notice'' (of which notice of availability
was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the
existing Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1990 CAA also amended section 182(b)(2) which required RACT on
all major sources of VOCs for O3 nonattainment areas designated
moderate and above (RACT Catch-ups) by November 15, 1992. The RACT
Catch-ups provision required the State to submit a revision to the SIP
to implement RACT on: (1) Each category of VOC sources in the area
covered by a control technique guideline (CTG) document issued between
the enactment of the 1990 CAA and the date of attainment (which is not
an applicable requirement for purposes of this redesignation since the
due date for these rules is November 15, 1994, a date after the
submission of the redesignation request); (2) all VOC sources in the
area covered by any CTG issued before the date of the 1990 CAA; and (3)
all other major stationary sources of VOCs that are located in the
area.
North Carolina submitted SIP revisions to correct deficiencies in
the VOC regulations to EPA on September 21, 1989, January 14, 1991, and
April 29, 1991, all prior to the May 15, 1991, deadline. Additionally,
revisions to the Mecklenburg County local program regulations were
submitted on August 13, 1991, and July 19, 1993. A Federal Register
notice approving these SIP revisions was published on June 23, 1994 (59
FR 32365). The approval became effective on August 22, 1994.
North Carolina failed to meet the November 15, 1992, deadline date
for RACT catch-ups and EPA notified the State on January 15, 1993, that
a finding of failure to submit had been made. This finding of failure
to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month time clock for mandatory
application of sanctions under section 179(a); (2) the Administrator's
discretionary authority to impose sanctions under section 110(m); and
(3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) VOC regulations for this area as required by
section 110(c)(1).
The 18-month period prior to application of mandatory sanctions
ended on July 15, 1994. North Carolina submitted SIP revisions to EPA
on January 7, 1994, prior to the July 15, 1994, deadline. Because the
revisions addressed all RACT Catch-up requirements and were found to
contain all required administrative and technical components, the 18-
month time clock for mandatory application of sanctions under section
179(a) was stopped. Action to give final approval of the North Carolina
RACT Catch-up provisions will be taken at the time or prior to final
approval of this redesignation.
(3) Section 182(a)(3)--Emissions Statements
Section 182(a)(3) of the CAA required that the SIP be revised by
November 15, 1992, to require stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and VOCs to provide the State with a statement showing
actual emission each year. North Carolina failed to meet the November
15, 1992, deadline date for Emissions Statements and EPA notified the
State on January 15, 1993, that a finding of failure to submit had been
made. This finding of failure to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month
time clock for mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a);
(2) the Administrator's discretionary authority to impose sanctions
under section 110(m); and (3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of
the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) VOC regulations for this area as
required by section 110(c)(1).
The 18-month period prior to application of mandatory sanctions
ended on July 15, 1994. North Carolina submitted SIP revisions to EPA
on December 17, 1993, prior to the July 15, 1994, deadline. Because the
revision addressed all the Emission Statement requirements and was
found to contain all required administrative and technical components,
the 18-month time clock for mandatory application of sanctions under
section 179(a) was stopped. Final action regarding the North Carolina
Emission Statement regulation will be taken at the time or prior to
final approval of this redesignation. Approval of this redesignation is
contingent upon approval of the emission statement regulation.
(4) Section 182(b)(1)--15% Progress Plans
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA required states to submit a revision
to the SIP by [[Page 19200]] November 15, 1993, to provide for VOC
emission reductions by November 15, 1996, of at least 15% from baseline
emissions accounting for any growth in emissions after the date of
enactment of the CAA. The State failed to submit the required revisions
and as a result, on January 28, 1994, EPA issued a finding letter
notifying North Carolina of a finding of failure to submit. This
finding of failure to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month time clock for
mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a); (2) the
Administrator's discretionary authority to impose sanctions under
section 110(m); and (3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of the
FIP 15% regulations for this area as required by section 110(c)(1).
However, the letter acknowledges the submittal of this redesignation
request to attainment and stated that if the redesignation request to
attainment is approved then requirements for a 15% plan SIP will be
unnecessary for the Charlotte-Gastonia area. Therefore, upon approval
of this redesignation request, the sanctions clock will stop. As the
requirement to submit a 15% plan did not come due until November 15,
1993, the 15% plan requirement is not an applicable requirement for
purposes of the evaluation of this redesignation request.
(5) Section 182(b)(3)--Stage II
Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA required moderate areas to implement
Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems unless and until EPA
promulgated onboard vapor recovery (OBVR) regulations. On January 24,
1994, EPA promulgated the OBVR rule, and, as section 202(a)(b) of the
CAA provides that once the rule is promulgated, moderate areas are no
longer required to implement Stage II. Thus, the Stage II vapor
recovery requirement of section 182(b)(3) is no longer an applicable
requirement.
(6) Section 182(b)(4)--Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
The CAA required all moderate and above areas to revise the SIP to
include provisions necessary to provide for a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program. The State failed to submit the required revisions
and as a result, on January 15, 1993, EPA issued a finding letter
notifying North Carolina of a finding of failure to submit. This
finding of failure to submit triggered the: (1) 18-month time clock for
mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a); (2) the
Administrator's discretionary authority to impose sanctions under
section 110(m); and (3) the 2-year time clock for promulgation of the
FIP I/M regulations for this area as required by section 110(c)(1).
However, on July 19, 1993, the State submitted revisions to their I/M
regulations, prior to the July 15, 1994, deadline. Because the revision
addressed all the I/M requirements and was found to contain all
required administrative and technical components, the 18-month time
clock for mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a) was
stopped. Final action regarding the North Carolina I/M regulation will
be taken at the time or prior to final approval of this redesignation.
The approval of this redesignation is contingent upon final approval of
the I/M regulation.
(7) Section 182(b)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
The CAA required all classified nonattainment areas to meet several
requirements regarding NSR, including provisions to ensure that
increased emissions of VOCs compounds will not result from any new or
major source modifications and a general offset rule. The State
submitted a NSR rule on January 7, 1994, to incorporate VOC and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) permit review requirements for new and modified
sources in North Carolina's O3 nonattainment areas. The revised
permit requirements meet new offset ratios and additional provisions
for moderate O3 nonattainment areas. EPA approved this rule on
October 31, 1994 (59 FR 54388), giving North Carolina a fully approved
NSR program. (EPA notes that under the policy announced in the
memorandum, ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' dated October 14, 1994,
from Mary D. Nichols to Air Division Directors I-X, approval of the NSR
submittal is not necessarily required for approval of a redesignation.)
(8) Section 182(f)--Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Requirements
Section 182(f) of the CAA requires states with areas designated
nonattainment for O3 and classified as moderate and above to
impose the same control requirements for major stationary sources of
NOX as apply to major stationary sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). These control requirements, NOX RACT and
NOX NSR, were to be submitted to EPA in a SIP revision by November
15, 1992. EPA adopted a policy pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA
to conditionally approve NOX RACT SIPs which committed to provide
EPA with specific enforceable measures within one year of the date of
approval of the commitment. EPA's committal SIP policy was challenged
in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Browner--in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a full
Opinion, dated May 6, 1994, the Court found that EPA's conditional
approval interpretation exceeded the EPA's statutory authority, but
concluded that ``EPA properly extended'' to November 15, 1993, the
deadline for submittal of fully enforceable NOX RACT SIPs. As a
result of this court case, the deadline to submit NOX RACT rules
was November 15, 1993. Therefore, because that date is after the State
submitted the redesignation request, NOX RACT is not an applicable
requirement for this redesignation request.
3. The Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the
CAA
Based on the approval of provisions under the pre-amended CAA and
EPA's prior approval of SIP revisions under the amended CAA, EPA has
determined that North Carolina will have a fully approved O3 SIP
under section 110(k) for the moderate nonattainment area if EPA
approves SIP submissions regarding the emissions inventory, emission
statements, VOC RACT catch-ups, and I/M. Final action will be taken
prior to or at the same time as final approval of this redesignation.
4. The Air Quality Improvement Must Be Permanent and Enforceable
Several control measures have come into place since the Charlotte-
Gastonia nonattainment area violated the O3 NAAQS. Of these
control measures, the reduction of fuel volatility from 10.6 psi in
1987 to less than 9.0 psi in 1990, and finally to less than 7.8 psi
beginning with the summer of 1992, as measured by the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP), and fleet turnover due to the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program (FMVCP) produced the most significant decreases in VOC
emissions. The reduction in VOC emissions due to the mobile source
regulations from 1987 to 1990 is 26.01 tons per day (29.63%). The VOC
emissions in the base year are not artificially low due to a depressed
economy.
5. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS
for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment. Eight years [[Page 19201]] after the redesignation, the
state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates
attainment for the ten years following the initial ten-year period. To
provide for the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance
plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule for
implementation, adequate to assure prompt correction of any air quality
problems.
In this notice, EPA is proposing approval of the State of North
Carolina's maintenance plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment
area because EPA finds that North Carolina's submittal meets the
requirements of section 175A.
A. Emissions Inventory--Base Year Inventory
On November 13, 1992, the State of North Carolina submitted
comprehensive inventories of VOC, NOX , and CO emissions from the
Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment area. The inventory included biogenic,
area, stationary, and mobile sources for 1990.
The State of North Carolina submittal contains the detailed
inventory data and summaries by county and source category. Finally,
this inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. A summary
of the base year inventory is included in this notice. This notice
proposes approval of the base year inventory for the Charlotte-Gastonia
area.
1990 Charlotte/Gastonia Typical Summer Day Emissions Tons Per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NOX VOC CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..................................... 31.25 33.99 35.27
Area...................................... 4.92 67.59 25.00
Nonroad................................... 15.52 19.38 138.45
Biogenic.................................. 2.78 54.41 0.0
Mobile.................................... 61.64 50.81 371.26
-----------------------------
Total................................... 116.11 226.18 569.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Demonstration of Maintenance--Urban Airshed Modeling
a. Proposed Control Strategy
The plan must demonstrate maintenance for at least 10 years. The
North Carolina plan demonstrates maintenance out to the year 2005
through the use of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM). The revised modeling
runs, submitted in the December 16, 1994 supplement, were completed for
three meteorological episodes during which the area experienced
exceedances of the ozone standard. These runs corrected and completed
the modeling submitted in the original November 1993 submittal pursuant
to EPA comments. Base and future case modeling was done according to
guidelines presented in the EPA document ``Guideline for Regulatory
Application of the Urban Airshed Model'' in performing the modeling
analysis. The future case modeling includes the interim year 1999 and
the 10 year maintenance year of 2005. This modeling analysis did not
assume any benefit from the NSR program.
Modeling for all three episodes indicated that to predict all grid
cells below .124 parts per million (ppm) for both 1999 and 2005,
additional controls would be needed. The analysis of control options
showed that a further reduction of VOC emissions of 25 percent
demonstrated a 1 part per billion (ppb) reduction of ozone and a
further reduction of VOC emissions of 50 percent demonstrated a 2 ppb
or less reduction in ozone. By contrast, a 35 percent further reduction
of NOX resulted in a 10-12 ppb reduction in ozone. Therefore,
North Carolina concluded that the NOX controls will be more
effective in the maintenance of the standard in the Charlotte/Gastonia
area, and, hence, the selected strategy primarily consists of controls
of NOX emissions. The revised modeling and the identified control
measures will be the subject of a public hearing on April 19, 1995. The
selected control strategy includes the following measures:
Reformulated Gasoline to meet the Federal Phase I and Phase
II standards to begin in 1999 in Mecklenburg, Gaston, Union,
Cabarrus, Lincoln, Rowan, and Iredell Counties;
Clean Fuel Fleet Program, including the schedule for
implementation as specified in the CAA for areas classified serious
and above, in the same seven counties previously listed;
Burning bans in the seven counties for the months of June,
July, and August;
Control of NOX for the Transcontinental Natural Gas
Pumping Station in Iredell County for the months of June, July, and
August; and
Additional 10 percent control beyond the control being
applied to meet title IV NOX requirements on Duke Power's Allen
and Riverbend facilities in Gaston County for the months of June,
July, and August.
The State will also take comment at the public hearing on the
feasibility of substituting an enhanced I/M program for the
reformulated gasoline measure. The modeling results indicate that such
substitution would show maintenance of the standard. The strategy
represents a combination of mobile and stationary source controls that
provide a 25 ton per day reduction in NOx emissions resulting in a
2-6 ppb reduction in ozone, depending upon the meteorological episode.
The modeling for all three meteorological episodes for both 1999 and
2005 with the above described control strategy showed attainment of the
O3 standard. The State has committed to develop regulations
necessary to implement a control strategy that will demonstrate
maintenance of the ozone standard through 2005, and submit those
regulations to EPA for approval into the maintenance plan.
b. Request for Comments
Consistent with the notice of public hearing for the redesignation
of the Charlotte-Gastonia ozone nonattainment area, the State will take
comment on the aforementioned control strategy, that strategy with
enhanced I/M as a substitute for the reformulate gasoline measure, and
any combination of those control measures. EPA invites comment on the
following scenarios:
(a) Adoption and implementation in 1999 of the five measures as
detailed above;
(b) Adoption and implementation in 1999 of the five measures as
detailed above with enhanced I/M substituted for the reformulated
gasoline program;
(c) Adoption and implementation in 1999 of the aforementioned
controls on the Transcontinental Natural Gas Pumping Station in
Iredell County and the additional 10 percent control beyond the
title IV requirements on Duke Power's Allen and Riverbend facilities
in Gaston County; or
(d) Approval of the request as demonstrating maintenance with no
additional VOC or NOx controls.
Scenarios a and b both involve a combination of measures that
results in the modeling showing attainment of the standard in all grid
cells. Scenario a, however, involves the inclusion by the State in the
maintenance plan of regulations to require the sale of reformulated
gasoline beginning in 1999. EPA specifically requests comment regarding
the issue of whether such regulations may be adopted or enforced in
maintenance or attainment areas by a state in light of the preemption
provisions of section 211(c)(4) of the CAA.
Scenarios c and d, on the other hand, do not provide for the
adoption of control measures that result in the modeling showing
attainment of the standard in all grid cells. EPA requests comment as
to whether, in light of the reasons described below, a maintenance plan
based on either scenario c or d should be approved for the Charlotte
area. Under scenario d, no additional controls approved for
maintenance, the modeling shows 3 to 4 grid cells out of 625 over the
standard. The range of predicted values above .124 ppm for this
scenario is .125 ppm to .129 ppm. [[Page 19202]]
Although the ozone modeling guidance generally requires that
modeling results show attainment of the standard in all grid cells, it
does allow alternative methods for demonstrating attainment on a case
by case basis. EPA believes that the modeling demonstration submitted
by the State of North Carolina is sufficiently conservative so that it
is likely that the O3 NAAQS will continue to be maintained in the
Charlotte area without the State having to invoke costly additional
measures adopted in the maintenance standard. That belief is based on
the combination of the following factors:
(1) North Carolina has five years of air quality data showing
attainment of the standard.
(2) The maintenance plan contains pre-adopted measures and a
violation would trigger reduction in emissions by the following
ozone season.
(3) The ozone standard is a statistically based NAAQS that
allows one exceedance per year.
(4) North Carolina has done extensive modeling to gain an
understanding of the creation of ozone in the Charlotte area and has
generally made conservative assumptions in selecting modeling
inputs.
(5) The uncertainties in the biogenic emission inventory and
other modeling inputs are well within the range of the 2-3 ppb
needed to reach the .124 ppm in all grid cells.
(6) The modeling did not account for lower VOC, NOX and
O3 boundary conditions expected when SIP attainment control
programs have been implemented in many areas throughout the United
States.
Therefore, EPA believes the area is eligible for redesignation with
the existing control strategy and the contingency plan discussed
below.
The emissions budget for conformity is contingent upon the
control strategy selected pursuant to the April 19, 1995, public
hearing. That budget will be published in any notice that takes
final action approving this redesignation request.
C. Verification of Continued Attainment
Continued attainment of the O3 NAAQS in the nonattainment area
depends, in part, on the State of North Carolina's efforts toward
tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance
period. The primary trigger of the contingency plan will be a violation
of the ambient air quality standard for ozone. The trigger date will be
the date that the State certifies to EPA that the data is quality
assured, which will occur no later than 30 days after the recorded
violation. The secondary trigger of the contingency plan will be an
exceedance of the ozone standard that would indicate a violation could
be imminent. This trigger will be activated within 30 days of the State
finding the exceedance.
Once either the primary or the secondary trigger is activated, the
State Air Quality Section will commence analysis, including updated
modeling as necessary, to determine what control measures will be
required to bring the area back into attainment. By May 1 of the year
following the ozone season in which the primary trigger has been
activated, the State will complete the analysis and adopt stationary
control measures indicated by the analysis, using the emergency rule
process as necessary. The time frame for adopting measures other than
for stationary sources will be based on the time frames in section
181(b) of the CAA. Where only the secondary trigger has been activated,
the State will complete the analysis and begin the regulatory adoption
process for any measures that are needed by May 1 of the following
year.
D. Contingency Plan
The level of VOC and NOX emissions in the nonattainment areas
will largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the
O3 NAAQS in the future. Despite the State's best efforts to
demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air
pollutant concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS. Therefore,
the State of North Carolina has provided contingency measures with a
schedule for implementation in the event of a future O3 air
quality problem. The actual measures will be determined from the
analysis process described in the Verification of Continued Attainment
portion of this notice. The measures analyzed will include RACT or
greater level control for NOX and VOC sources, Stage II vapor
control for gasoline dispensing facilities, enhancements to the I/M
program, transportation control measures, and any other appropriate
measures. EPA finds that the contingency plan provided in the State of
North Carolina's submittal meets the requirements of section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
E. Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revisions
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State of North
Carolina has agreed to submit a revised maintenance SIP eight years
after the nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment. Such
revised SIP will provide for maintenance for an additional ten years.
6. Proposed Action
EPA proposes approval of the State of North Carolina's request to
redesignate to attainment the Charlotte-Gastonia O3 nonattainment
area and maintenance plan contingent upon a full and final approval of
the outstanding requirements discussed above (emission statement, RACT
catch-ups, emission inventory and I/M). EPA also proposes to approve
the 1990 baseyear inventory for the Charlotte-Gastonia nonattainment
area.
The OMB has exempted these actions from review under Executive
Order 12866.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The
Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: April 5, 1995.
Joe R. Franzmathes,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-9248 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
