[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44873-44882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18345]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275; FRL-9931-28-Region 4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Charlotte-Rock Hill, 
2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking three 
separate final actions related to a state implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North 
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of 
Air Quality (NC DAQ), on April 16, 2015. These final actions are for 
the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte-Rock Hill, North 
Carolina-South Carolina 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area'' or 
``Area''). The bi-state Charlotte Area consists of Mecklenburg County 
in its entirety and portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 
Rowan and Union Counties, North Carolina; and a portion of York County, 
South Carolina. Regarding South Carolina's request to redesignate the 
South Carolina portion of the Area and its maintenance plan for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will address this in a separate action. In 
the three actions for the North Carolina bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA 
determines that the bi-state Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); approves and 
incorporates the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-
hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 sub-area 
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the North 
Carolina portion of this Area into the SIP; and redesignates the North 
Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to attainment for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA finds the 2014 and 2026 sub-
area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 
Area adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity.

DATES: This rule will be effective August 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be publicly

[[Page 44874]]

available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management 
Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or 
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Final Actions

    On May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment 
or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated 
on March 27, 2008. See 77 FR 30088. The bi-state Charlotte Area was 
designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 
classified as a marginal nonattainment area. On April 16, 2015, NC DAQ 
requested that EPA redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area 
to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and submitted a SIP 
revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 
2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, including the 2014 and 2026 
MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the North Carolina portion of the 
bi-state Charlotte Area. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 
published on May 21, 2015, EPA proposed to determine that the bi-state 
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; to approve and 
incorporate into the North Carolina SIP the State's plan for 
maintaining attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the Area, 
including the 2014 and 2026 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the 
North Carolina potion of the bi-state Charlotte Area; and to 
redesignate the North Carolina portion of the Area to attainment for 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 29250. In that document, EPA 
also notified the public of the status of the Agency's adequacy 
determination for the subarea NOX and VOC MVEBs for the 
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. The details of 
North Carolina's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are 
further explained in the NPR. See 80 FR 29250 (May 21, 2015).

II. EPA's Responses to Comments

    EPA received two sets of comments on its May 21, 2015, proposed 
rulemaking actions. Specifically, EPA received adverse comments from 
the Sierra Club (``Commenter'') and comments supporting the proposed 
actions from one member of the general public.\1\ Full sets of these 
comments are provided in the docket for this final action. See Docket 
number EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0275. A summary of the adverse comments and 
EPA's responses are provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The supporting comments state that the 2012-2014 three-year 
average ``support[s] attainment'' and that the ``[p]rojected 
NOX shows decreases in all categories over the next 
decade, so even if the predicted large projected decreases in on-
road NOX are not met the area should still see an overall 
decrease in ozone levels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that North Carolina experienced 
``abnormally cool weather'' during the summers of 2013 and 2014 ``that 
reduced the likelihood of ozone formation'' and that the design values 
for the Area would have exceeded the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ``but 
for the uncharacteristically cool summers in 2013 and 2014.'' 
Therefore, the Commenter believes that EPA ``should decline to issue 
the requested attainment determination for the Area.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that 
weather should impact EPA's determination that the area has attained 
the NAAQS pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). That factual 
determination is based solely on air quality monitoring data and on the 
Agency's evaluation of that data's compliance with 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix P. Therefore, weather conditions, including any alleged 
resulting changes in energy demand, are irrelevant in determining 
whether an area is factually attaining a NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS is determined by calculating the three-year average of the annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an 
ozone monitor, also known as a monitor's design value. See 40 CFR part 
50, appendix P. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 
parts per million (ppm) at each monitor within the area, then the area 
is attaining the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement for 
evaluating monitoring data for NAAQS attainment is met at each monitor 
when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is 
greater than or equal to 90 percent and no single year has less than 75 
percent data completeness as defined in appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. 
Monitoring data must also be collected and quality-assured in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality 
System (AQS).
    EPA's analysis of monitoring data in the bi-state Charlotte Area 
supports its determination under section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) that the Area 
has attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The design values for each 
monitor in the Area for the years 2012-2014 are less than or equal to 
0.075 ppm, and the data from these monitors during this time period 
meet the data quality and completeness requirements and are recorded in 
AQS. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area has attained the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix P 
requirements.
    Comment 2: The Commenter believes that EPA should disapprove North 
Carolina's redesignation request because ``neither EPA nor DAQ has 
demonstrated that the recording of a design value below 75 ppb [parts 
per billion] for the years 2012-2014 is `due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions' '' as required by CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii). According to the Commenter, EPA and NC DAQ cannot 
make this demonstration because ``but for the uncharacteristically cool 
summers in 2013 and 2014, a design value above 75 ppb would have been 
recorded.'' The Commenter also contends that the ``uncharacteristically 
cool summers in 2013 and 2014'' resulted in ``unusually low monthly 
total consumption of electric power'' and ``starkly lower capacity 
factors'' from Duke Energy's GG Allen and Marshall power plants during 
those summers and notes that ``operation of these plants significantly 
impacts total NOX emissions and, thus, overall ozone 
levels.'' \2\ Despite the alleged decrease in

[[Page 44875]]

the capacity factors at these two EGUs, the Commenter states that ``the 
plants still tend to run at a significantly higher capacity factor on 
peak ozone days.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The GG Allen plant is located in the portion of Gaston 
County that is included in the nonattainment area. The Marshall 
plant is located in Catawba County and is not located within the 
nonattainment area. During the nonattainment designation in 2012, 
sources in Catawba County were not found to contribute to violations 
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the bi-state Charlotte Area. See 
http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/R4_Charlotte_TSD_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2: Weather effects are not controllable, and weather is 
just one of the parameters that allow for ozone formation. EPA does not 
disagree with the Commenter that ozone season temperatures and 
precipitation are two readily available parameters that can be used to 
evaluate the potential weather impacts on ozone concentrations. Ozone 
is more readily formed on warm, sunny days when the air is stagnant. 
Conversely, ozone production is generally more limited when it is 
cloudy, cool, rainy, or windy.\3\ However, although EPA agrees that the 
Area experienced cooler and wetter weather during some of the relevant 
time period, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the improvement in 
air quality in the bi-state Charlotte Area was solely the result of 
``aberrant weather.'' EPA has examined the weather data presented by 
the Commenter, and has determined, after conducting its own analysis of 
the meteorological conditions and the emission reductions occurring 
during the relevant time period, that the improvement in air quality in 
the Area was due to those emissions reductions in accordance with CAA 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/weather.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Federal regulations require EPA to use a three-year 
average to determine attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 
averaging of values over three years serves to account for some 
variation in meteorology from year to year. While EPA agrees that 2013 
was cooler than the long-term average temperature and may have been 
less conducive to the formation of ozone, the Agency also notes that 
the weather conditions in the 2012 ozone season (a season included in 
the three-year average forming the basis for the attainment 
determination) were warmer than the long-term average and were more 
conducive to ozone formation. See Table 1, below.\4\ Furthermore, 
temperatures in the summer of 2014 are close to the long-term average 
temperatures. Given the higher than long-term average 2012 temperatures 
and the near normal \5\ temperatures in 2014, EPA does not agree with 
the Commenter's conclusion that meteorological conditions during the 
relevant time period were so unusual or abnormal such that those 
conditions alone ``provide sufficient justification for EPA to reject 
DAQ's request for the redesignation of the Area from nonattainment to 
attainment.'' To the contrary, the certified data show that the Area 
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 2012 to 2014, a time period 
with varying meteorological conditions. Preliminary monitoring data 
from 2015 also indicates that the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to 
attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's use of the phrase ``long-term average'' refers to the 
74-year averages identified in Table 1.
    \5\ EPA's analysis is based on weather data from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (see below). NOAA defines 
``normal'' as the ``long-term average value of a meteorological 
element for a certain area. For example, `temperatures are normal 
for this time of year[.]' Usually averaged over 30 years.'' See 
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/box/glossary.htm.
    \6\ This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web 
site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list of monitors in the bi-state 
Charlotte Area is available under the Designated Area field in Table 
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides temperature and precipitation data for the bi-
state Charlotte Area for the ozone seasons (May 1 -September 30) from 
2010-2014 obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA 
NCEI).\7\ Specifically, Table 1 provides overall average and average 
maximum ozone season temperatures and total ozone season precipitation; 
deviation from the 74-year average ozone season temperature and 
precipitation (termed the ``anomaly''); and the rank of the given year 
on the 74-year (1940-2014) recorded history list. A rank of 74 is given 
to the hottest or wettest year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Ozone is monitored from April 1 through October 31 in the 
bi-state Charlotte Area.
    \8\ EPA obtained this weather data from the NOAA NCEI Web site 
at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/.

                         Table 1--Charlotte, North Carolina Temperature and Precipitation Ozone Season (May-September) Data \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Average May-                        Average maximum
                                            September                           May-September                         Precipitation
                                           temperature                           temperature                        [inches] (anomaly
                 Year                      [degrees F]     Rank [since 1940,     [degrees F]     Rank [since 1940,    from the long-   Rank [since 1940,
                                        (anomaly from the    scale of 1-74]   (anomaly from the    scale of 1-74]      term average      scale of 1-74]
                                        long-term average                     long-term average                      [18.17 inches])
                                        [74.7 degrees F])                     [84.9 degrees F])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010..................................        78.0 (+3.3)                 73        88.8 (+3.9)                 73       17.67 (-0.5)                 36
2011..................................        76.2 (+1.5)                 64        87.3 (+2.4)                 67       22.1 (+3.93)                 58
2012..................................        75.3 (+0.6)                 52        86.3 (+1.4)                 54       18.87 (+0.7)                 44
2013..................................        73.9 (-0.8)                 21        83.3 (-1.6)                 12      22.63 (+4.46)                 61
2014..................................        74.5 (-0.2)                 32        84.5 (-0.4)                 32      19.01 (+0.84)                 46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in Table 1 show that both average temperature and 
precipitation varied significantly from 2010-2014. The rank and anomaly 
data in Table 1 show that average ozone season temperatures and 
precipitation were slightly above normal for the year 2012, 
temperatures were below normal and precipitation was above normal in 
2013, and temperatures were near normal and precipitation slightly 
above normal in 2014. The year 2012 was one of the hottest in the 
recent past across the Southeast. In fact, a record-setting heat wave 
occurred in late June through early July 2012, which resulted in high 
ozone levels measured across the Southeast. Based upon the meteorology 
analysis, 2012 was hotter, 2013 was cooler, and 2014 was near normal 
when compared to the long-term average. Therefore, the 2012-2014 period 
does not appear to be abnormally conducive to low ozone formation and 
does not undermine EPA's analysis that the attainment in the bi-state 
Charlotte Area was due to permanent and enforceable reductions.
    EPA also evaluated preliminary ozone data and meteorology for May 
2015, which is the beginning of the ozone season in the Area. The 
Commenter provided data to show that the average maximum temperature in 
May 2015 is

[[Page 44876]]

higher than the average maximum May temperature over the previous ten 
years. EPA agrees that the average maximum temperature in May 2015 was 
above average; in fact, the average maximum temperature was 84 degrees 
Fahrenheit, which is 4.2 degrees above average and it ranks 67 out of 
75 years of recorded data in the bi-state Charlotte Area. However, even 
with this abnormally warm month, the May 2015 preliminary ozone data 
indicates that no exceedances of the 75 ppb ozone standard occurred and 
that the highest 8-hour average was 72 ppb. This data also indicates 
that although meteorological conditions were conducive to ozone 
formation, emissions in the Area were low enough not to support the 
formation of ozone above a level that would exceed the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. Additionally, preliminary ozone season data available 
through June 28, 2015, indicate that the 4th Highest Maximum Daily 8-
hour Average value for the bi-state Charlotte area monitors from March 
1, 2015 through June 28, 2015 is 72 ppb.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This preliminary data is available at EPA's air data Web 
site: http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html#Daily. The list of monitors in the bi-state 
Charlotte Area is available under the Designated Area field in Table 
5 of the Ozone detailed information file at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenter's focus on meteorological conditions is inconsistent 
with EPA's analysis of the permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions that did occur in the area during the relevant time period. 
Consistent with EPA's longstanding practice and policy, a comparison of 
nonattainment period emissions with attainment period emissions is a 
relevant in demonstrating permanent and enforceable emissions 
reductions. EPA evaluated the ozone precursor emissions data in the 
Area and found that there were significant reductions in these 
emissions in multiple source categories from 2011 (a nonattainment 
year) to 2014 (an attainment year). The emissions data show that from 
2011 to 2014, non-road NOX and VOC emissions decreased, 
point source NOX emissions decreased, and on-road mobile 
NOX and VOC emissions have decreased substantially. During 
this time period, mobile source NOX emissions decreased by 
approximately 54.5 tons per summer day (tpsd) (equating to 79 percent 
of the total NOX emissions reductions) and mobile source VOC 
emissions decreased by approximately 26.5 tpsd (equating to 100 percent 
of the total VOC emissions reductions). It is not necessary for every 
change in emissions between the nonattainment year and the attainment 
year to be permanent and enforceable. Rather, the CAA requires that 
improvement in air quality necessary for the area to attain the 
relevant NAAQS must be reasonably attributable to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions in emissions.

                  Table 2--NOX Emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                 Point source     Area source       On-road        Non-road          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................           47.17            6.68          112.13           28.75          194.73
2014............................           32.38           11.40           60.15           26.26          130.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 3--VOC Emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                 Point source     Area source       On-road        Non-road          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................           11.37           46.69           55.35            24.4          137.81
2014............................           12.03           47.88           34.32           18.89          113.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions reductions identified in Tables 2 and 3, above, are 
attributable to numerous measures implemented during this period, 
including the permanent and enforceable mobile source measures 
discussed in the NPR such as the Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards, the 
large non-road diesel engines rule,\10\ heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 
highway vehicle standards,\11\ medium and heavy duty vehicle fuel 
consumption and GHG standards,\12\ non-road spark-ignitions and 
recreational standards,\13\ and the national program for GHG emissions 
and fuel economy standards. These mobile source measures have resulted 
in, and continue to result in, large reductions in NOX 
emissions over time due to fleet turnover (i.e., the replacement of 
older vehicles that predate the standards with newer vehicles that meet 
the standards). For example, implementation of the Tier 2 standards 
began in 2004, and as newer, cleaner cars enter the national fleet, 
these standards continue to significantly reduce NOX 
emissions. EPA expects that these standards will reduce NOX 
emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 percent by 2030, 
translating to nearly 3 million tons annually by 2030.\14\ 
Implementation of the heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle 
standards rule also began in 2004. EPA projects a 2.6 million ton 
reduction in NOX emissions by 2030 when the heavy-duty 
vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles 
that comply with these emission standards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut 
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 
percent nationwide.
    \11\ Implementation of this rule is expected to achieve a 95 
percent reduction in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and 
buses.
    \12\ When fully implemented in 2018, this rule is expected to 
reduce NOX emissions from the covered vehicles by 20 
percent.
    \13\ When fully implemented, the standards will result in an 80 
percent reduction in NOX by 2020.
    \14\ EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA420-F-99-051 (December 
1999), available at: http://www.epa.gov/tier2/documents/f99051.pdf.
    \15\ 66 FR 5002, 5012 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State calculated the on-road and non-road mobile source 
emissions contained in Tables 2 and 3 using EPA-approved models and 
procedures that account for the Federal mobile source measures 
identified above, fleet turnover, and increased 
population.16 17

[[Page 44877]]

Because the model does not include any additional mobile source 
measures, the large reductions in mobile source emissions quantified in 
the Area between 2011 and 2014 are the result of the permanent and 
enforceable mobile source measures listed above and discussed in the 
NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ North Carolina used EPA's MOVES2014 model to calculate on-
road emissions factors and EPA's NONROAD 2008a model to quantify 
off-road emissions.
    \17\ North Carolina used the interagency consultation process 
required by 40 CFR part 93 (known as the Transportation Conformity 
Rule) which requires EPA, the United States Department of 
Transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, state 
departments of transportation, and State and local air quality 
agencies to work together to develop applicable implementation 
plans. The on-road emissions were generated by an aggregate of the 
vehicle activity (generated from the travel demand model) on 
individual roadways multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor 
from MOVES2014. The assumptions which are included in the travel 
demand model, such as population, were reviewed through the 
interagency consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the Commenter's discussion of capacity factors at the GG 
Allen and Marshall power plants and cooling degree days, the Commenter 
does not attempt to quantify how any decreases in these parameters 
translate to decreases in NOX emissions or ozone 
concentrations; therefore, it is unclear how the changes in capacity 
factors and cooling degree days support the Commenter's position that 
EPA cannot redesignate the bi-state Charlotte Area. The data in Table 
2, above, demonstrates that the decreases in mobile source 
NOX emissions from 2011-2014 are much greater than the 
decreases in point-source NOX emissions.
    In addition, EPA does not believe that the cooling degree and 
capacity factor data supports the conclusions reached by the Commenter. 
The Commenter presents data showing cooling degree days for North 
Carolina for the past ten years and concludes that the cooler summers 
in 2013 and 2014 have resulted in a lower demand for air conditioning 
and thus a lower demand for electric power. EPA acknowledges that the 
number of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 and the total 
consumption of electricity in North Carolina were lower in 2013 and 
2014 than during 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, the Commenter ignores 
the fact that the numbers of cooling degree days in 2010, 2011, and 
2012 were significantly above average. In fact, the number of cooling 
degree days in 2010 ranks the highest in the 120 years of data 
available for North Carolina and 2011 ranks the third highest out of 
those 120 years. In contrast, the number of cooling degree days in 2013 
and 2014 were close to the 120-year average--2013 is slightly below the 
average, but the 2014 cooling degree days are actually above the long-
term 120-year average. Also, even within the ten years of data 
presented by the Commenter, the number of cooling degree days in 2014 
is on par with the number of cooling degree days in 2006, 2008, and 
2009. EPA therefore does not agree with the Commenter that the number 
of cooling degree days in 2013 and 2014 undermines the Agency's 
conclusion about the causes of the attainment air quality in the Area.
    EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's characterization of the 
capacity factor and electric power usage data presented in its 
comments. For example, the Commenter provides a figure showing total 
consumption of electric power in North Carolina for each ozone season 
for only the last five years (2010 through 2014) and concludes that the 
electric power consumption in 2013 and 2014 was ``unusually low'' using 
this limited time period as its reference point. However, as 
demonstrated by the meteorological analysis provided in Table 1 of this 
final action, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are warmer than long-term average 
years. Therefore, it is not appropriate to conclude that levels in 2013 
and 2014 were ``unusually low'' without evaluating consumption data 
from a larger time period. EPA also notes that the Commenter's 
conclusion that ozone season capacity factors in 2012-2014 at the GG 
Allen and Marshall power plants are ``starkly lower than preceding 
years'' that ``can be attributed, in part to the aberrantly mild summer 
weather and the resulting decrease in energy demand'' ignores the fact 
that 2012 had warmer than average summer temperatures and still had 
capacity factors at those same units that were lower than or comparable 
to 2014. The Commenter's assertion is also based on the limited 2010-
2014 time period that is not representative of long-term meteorological 
conditions. Therefore, the Commenter has not established a causal 
connection between differences in ozone season meteorological 
conditions and capacity factors for these EGUs.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA does not agree with the 
Commenter that the meteorological data from the relevant time period 
undermines its analysis and conclusion that the improvement in air 
quality in the bi-State Charlotte Area is reasonably attributable to 
the permanent and enforceable emission reductions identified by the 
State and EPA.
    Comment 3: The Commenter states that ``as EPA has acknowledged, 
global climate change likely will lead to significantly higher summer 
temperatures in the years to come and hotter summers, in turn, will 
lead to increased ozone formation.'' The Commenter therefore believes 
that it is ``irrational'' for EPA to approve the redesignation request 
based on data from ``two outlying uncharacteristically cool summers'' 
that ``Charlotte may not experience again.''
    Response 3: EPA agrees that climate change is a serious 
environmental issue; however, EPA does not agree that the redesignation 
and maintenance plan at issue are flawed because temperatures may 
increase in the future. Given the potential wide-ranging impacts of 
climate change on air quality planning, EPA is developing climate 
adaptation implementation plans to assess the key vulnerabilities to 
our programs (including how climate change might affect attainment of 
national ambient air quality standards) and to identify priority 
actions to minimize these vulnerabilities.
    With respect to climate impacts on future ozone levels, EPA's 
Office of Air and Radiation has identified as a priority action the 
need to adjust air quality modeling tools and guidance as necessary to 
account for climate-driven changes in meteorological conditions and 
meteorologically-dependent emissions. However, EPA has not yet made 
those changes. The broad range of potential future climate outcomes and 
variability of projected response to these outcomes limits EPA's 
ability, at this time, to translate a general expectation that average 
ozone levels will increase with rising temperatures to specific 
``actionable'' SIP policies at any specific location, including the bi-
state Charlotte Area. Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely 
upon the existing air quality modeling tools and guidance and 
applicable CAA provisions to ensure that ozone maintenance areas do not 
violate the NAAQS (as a result of climate change or any other cause).
    As noted above, EPA is currently unable to fully account for the 
potential impact of climate change on ozone concentrations in the Area. 
However, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the large 
emissions reductions of NOX and VOC projected for the Area 
over the next 10 years would be outpaced by the potential increase in 
ozone concentrations caused by climate change over the same time 
period.
    Comment 4: The Commenter contends that EPA should not approve the 
State's maintenance plan because ``DAQ selected 2014 as the base year 
for the purpose of its maintenance demonstration, which year is not 
representative of air quality conditions given aberrant weather, and, 
thus, inappropriately skewed the analysis of future air quality toward 
an

[[Page 44878]]

underestimation of future emissions.'' According to the Commenter, EPA 
should ``require DAQ to reevaluate the Area's ability to attain and 
maintain the ozone NAAQS using emissions data from a year (or years) in 
which summer weather conditions were more typical.''
    Response 4: As discussed in Response 2, EPA does not agree with the 
Commenter's assertion that the weather in summer 2014 was ``unusually 
cool'' when the conditions from that year are viewed in comparison to a 
larger data set, and therefore does not agree that NC DAQ selected an 
inappropriate base year for a maintenance demonstration. Furthermore, 
it is unclear how the Commenter concludes that EPA should disapprove 
the maintenance plan even if the Agency accepted the Commenter's 
assertion that the weather in 2014 was ``aberrant.'' The maintenance 
demonstration compares base year emissions to future year emissions. If 
total future year emissions are above total base year emissions, 
maintenance is not demonstrated. For some source categories, future 
year emissions are projected using base year emissions; however, for 
other source categories, future year emissions projections are 
independent of base year emissions. Projected emissions for source 
categories that rely on base year emissions will be proportional to 
base year emissions in the same degree regardless of the base year 
emissions used. It is therefore more likely that an area will fail to 
demonstrate maintenance using a comparison of total emissions if the 
baseline is artificially low. In addition, while emissions from some 
source categories may vary as a result of weather conditions, the 
overall NOX and VOC emissions released from year to year 
across source categories is generally not weather-dependent; therefore, 
weather does not play a determinative role in the base year to future 
year emissions comparison.
    Comment 5: The Commenter claims that EPA must disapprove the 
State's maintenance plan because ``it fails to specify emissions 
reductions that are permanent and enforceable. The proposed plan 
identifies various state and Federal requirements that may apply to the 
major stationary sources of air pollution located in and in close 
proximity to the Charlotte Area, however, it fails to present any 
assurance that such requirements will result in any reduction in 
emissions.'' In support, the Commenter references three requirements--
North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act and EPA's Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) and Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). As to these 
three measures, the Commenter states its belief that they are not 
permanent and enforceable because they are cap and trade programs that 
could allow for increased NOX emissions at Duke Energy's GG 
Allen and Marshall power plants. The Commenter further states that 
``DAQ should impose enforceable limits on NOX emissions from 
all EGUs [electricity generating units] that are based on available and 
demonstrated control technology.''
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. Consistent with EPA 
guidance, the State's maintenance plan identifies a number of permanent 
and enforceable requirements, including measures that regulate area, 
on-road, and off-road sources, and discusses the emissions reductions 
associated with each measure.\18\ See 80 FR 29250. In discussing the 
emissions reductions and status of these measures, the State has 
provided assurance that these requirements will result in emissions 
reductions.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Directors entitled 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment'' (September 4, 1992).
    \19\ See Response 2, above, for further discussion of these 
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's belief that emission 
reductions associated with the CSA, CAIR, and CSAPR are not permanent 
and enforceable simply because the underlying program is an emissions 
trading program. Cap-and-trade programs provide economic incentives for 
early reductions in emissions and encourage sources to install controls 
earlier than required for compliance with future caps on emissions. The 
flexibility under a cap-and-trade system is not about whether to reduce 
emissions; rather, it is about how to reduce them at the lowest 
possible cost. Trading programs require total mass emission reductions 
by establishing mandatory caps on total emissions to permanently reduce 
the total mass emissions allowed by sources subject to the programs, 
validated through rigorous continuous emission monitoring and reporting 
regimens. The emission caps and associated controls are enforced 
through the associated SIP rules or federal implementation plans. Any 
purchase of allowances and increase in emissions by one source 
necessitates a corresponding sale of allowances and either reduction in 
emissions or use of banked allowances by another covered source.
    Given the regional nature of ozone, the corresponding 
NOX emission and/or allowance reduction in one affected area 
will have an air quality benefit that will compensate, at least in 
part, for the impact of any emission increase in another affected area. 
EPA disagrees with any suggestion that only specific emission limits on 
units can be considered ``reductions.'' In fact, the information that 
EPA has evaluated in order to conclude that the bi-State Charlotte Area 
has met the criteria for redesignation shows that power plant emissions 
in both the Area and the surrounding region have substantially 
decreased as a result of cap-and-trade programs, including CAIR. The 
facts contradict the theoretical concerns raised by the Commenter and 
show that the emission trading programs, combined with other controls, 
have improved air quality in the Area.
    Moreover, experience has demonstrated that cap and trade programs 
do successfully generate lasting emission reductions. For example, the 
NOX SIP Call and CAIR have successfully reduced transported 
emissions contributing to ozone nonattainment in areas across the 
country. Data collected from long-term national air quality monitoring 
networks demonstrate that these regional cap-and-trade programs have 
resulted in substantial achievements in air quality caused by emission 
reductions from power sector sources.\20\ In 2004, EPA designated 91 
areas in the Eastern half of the United States as nonattainment for the 
8-hour ozone standard adopted in 1997, using data from 2001-2003. Based 
on data gathered from 2009-2011, 90 of these original Eastern 
nonattainment areas show concentrations below the 1997 ozone 
standard.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., EPA, Progress Report 2011--Clean Air Interstate 
Rule, Acid Rain Program, and Former NOX Budget Trading 
Program--Environmental and Health Results Report (March 2013), 
available at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/progressreports/ARPCAIR11_environmental_health.pdf.
    \21\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many states have sought and continue to seek redesignation of their 
nonattainment areas relying in part on the reductions attributable to 
these cap-and-trade programs. See, e.g., 76 FR 59600, 59607 (September 
27, 2011) (proposing to redesignate a portion of the Chicago area for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS), finalized at 76 FR 76302 (December 7, 
2011); and 74 FR 63995 (December 7, 2009) (redesignation of Great Smoky 
Mountain National Park for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS). The 
Commenter's contention that EPA and North Carolina may not rely on the 
substantial emission reductions that have already occurred

[[Page 44879]]

from these rules is based on a faulty and rigid interpretation of the 
CAA would impose a major obstacle for nonattainment areas across the 
country that have achieved attainment air quality because of the 
reductions required by the rules. This would unnecessarily undermine a 
reasonable, proven, and cost-effective approach to combating regional 
pollution problems.
    Of the Federally-enforceable rules relied upon by North Carolina in 
its redesignation request, the Commenter singles out cap-and-trade 
programs as insufficiently permanent and enforceable to meet the 
requirements for redesignation. However, as discussed above, a number 
of other permanent and enforceable measures have helped contribute to 
the Area's attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard and ensure 
maintenance of that standard. There is inherent flexibility in nearly 
all of these measures, including Federal transportation control 
measures and SIP emission rate limits, also known as ``command-and-
control'' regulations. For example, the rules do not and cannot account 
for when and where people drive their cars, nor do they dictate that 
consumers in a certain area invest in newer, lower-emitting cars. 
Similarly, emission rate limits limit the rate of emissions per unit of 
fuel consumed, or parts per million of emissions in the exhaust but do 
not regulate throughput or hours of operation of the regulated sources. 
It would be unworkable for EPA to disqualify a requirement as 
``permanent and enforceable'' for the purposes of redesignation simply 
because the requirement did not require the exact same pollutant 
emission reduction every hour of every day of every year. North 
Carolina relied on a suite of requirements that, while inherently 
allowing for some flexibility, has collectively served to bring the 
Area into, and to maintain, attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA's position that cap-and-trade programs are permanent and 
enforceable measures under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) was recently 
upheld by two Federal appellate courts. In the most recent decision, 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected 
Sierra Club's argument that EPA improperly relied on emissions 
reductions from cap-and-trade programs such as the NOX SIP 
Call, CAIR, and CSAPR in redesignating the Cincinnati-Hamilton 
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2015). This decision is consistent with the 
opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2014) that EPA could rely 
on the NOX SIP Call cap-and-trade program as a permanent and 
enforceable measure in redesignating the Milwaukee-Racine, Greater 
Chicago, and St. Louis (Illinois portion) nonattainment areas to 
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA also notes that North Carolina's maintenance plan provides for 
verification of continued attainment by performing future reviews of 
triennial emissions inventories and also for contingency measures to 
ensure that the NAAQS is maintained into the future if monitored 
increases in ambient ozone concentrations occur. See 80 FR 29250. For 
this and the above reasons, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position 
that the State failed to identify permanent and enforceable emissions 
reductions in its maintenance plan.
    Regarding the need for additional controls at the GG Allen and 
Marshall power plants, EPA has concluded that the Area has attained, 
and will maintain, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the permanent and 
enforceable measures identified in the State's submission and in EPA's 
NPR. EPA also notes that the Marshall Steam Plant is not located within 
the bi-state Charlotte Area nonattainment boundary, and is therefore 
not included in the emissions comparison portion of the maintenance 
demonstration. Furthermore, continued nonattainment status for this 
Area would not require any further emissions controls for either power 
plant under their current configurations.
    Comment 6: The Commenter believes that redesignating the bi-state 
Charlotte Area would ``eliminate needed additional air quality planning 
requirements and jeopardize public health by delaying permanent 
attainment for the area.'' According to the Commenter, the Area 
``consistently records higher asthma rates than the entire state. 
Moreover, the impacts of ozone pollution have significant environmental 
justice implications as African Americans carry a disproportionate 
asthma burden compared with whites in North Carolina.'' The Commenter 
therefore concludes that EPA should not redesignate the Area and that 
``[b]efore making a final decision on whether or not to approve DAQ's 
redesignation request, EPA must evaluate the environmental justice 
implications of such action and, if it still determines that 
redesignation is justified, must allow for additional public comment on 
any proposed action.''
    Response 6: As noted in EPA's May 21, 2015 NPR, Executive Order 
12898 establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. 
Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of 
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States. These 
final actions do not relax control measures on existing sources and 
therefore will not cause emissions increases from those sources. Thus, 
these actions will not have an adverse human health or environmental 
effect on any individuals, including minority or low-income 
populations. As discussed above and in EPA's May 21, 2015 NPR, the Area 
has attained the 2008 8-hour NAAQS through permanent and enforceable 
measures, emissions in the Area are projected to decline following the 
redesignation, and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will 
continue to meet the NAAQS for the next ten years and includes 
contingency measures to quickly address any NAAQS violations. While the 
Commenter has expressed a general concern that this action will 
``eliminate needed additional air quality planning requirements and 
jeopardize public health by delaying permanent attainment,'' the 
Commenter has not identified any specific requirements of concern or 
any specific information on the potential emissions impact that would 
arise if those requirements were not in place. Such future emission 
impacts are speculative, and to the extent that emissions in fact 
increase in the future to levels that would impact NAAQS maintenance--
which EPA does not think will happen--the Agency could take future 
action to address actual emissions in the Area.

III. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of North Carolina's redesignation request changes the 
legal designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and portions of 
Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties in the 
North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, found at 40 CFR 
81.334, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Approval of North Carolina's associated SIP revision also 
incorporates a plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 
bi-state Charlotte Area through 2026. The maintenance plan establishes 
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026 for

[[Page 44880]]

the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area and includes 
contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The 
sub-area MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 
Area along with the allocations from the safety margin are provided in 
the tables below.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion of the 
available safety margin to the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 
2026. NC DAQ has allocated 2.93 tpd (2650 kg/day) to the 2026 
NOX MVEB and 2.83 tpd (2,569 kg/day) to the 2026 VOC 
MVEB. After allocation of the available safety margin, the remaining 
safety margin was calculated as 59.72 tpd for NOX and 
10.15 tpd for VOC.

                    Table 4--Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization Sub-Area MVEBs
                                                    [kg/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2014                            2026
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions..................................          11,814           7,173           3,124           3,135
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB.................  ..............  ..............             625             627
Conformity MVEB.................................          11,814           7,173           3,749           3,762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


               Table 5--Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization Sub-Area MVEBs
                                                    [kg/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2014                            2026
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions..................................          10,079           5,916           2,482           2,278
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB.................  ..............  ..............             510             470
Conformity MVEB.................................          10,079           5,916           2,992           2,748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 6--Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization--Rocky River Rural Planning Organization Sub-
                                                   Area MVEBs
                                                    [kg/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2014                            2026
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions..................................          32,679          18,038           8,426           8,189
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEB.................  ..............  ..............           1,515           1,472
Conformity MVEB.................................          32,679          18,038           9,941           9,661
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Actions

    EPA is taking three separate final actions regarding the bi-state 
Charlotte Area's redesignation to attainment and maintenance of the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, EPA is determining that the bi-state 
Charlotte Area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 
complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for the 2012-
2014 monitoring period.
    Second, EPA is approving and incorporating the maintenance plan for 
the bi-state Charlotte Area, including the sub-area NOX and 
VOC MVEBs for 2014 and 2026, into the North Carolina SIP. The 
maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the sub-area budgets meet all of the 
adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5).
    Third, EPA is determining that North Carolina has met the criteria 
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the North Carolina portion of the 
bi-state Charlotte Area for redesignation from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is 
approving North Carolina's redesignation request for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 
Area. As mentioned above, approval of the redesignation request changes 
the official designation of Mecklenburg County in its entirety and 
portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan and Union 
Counties in the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from nonattainment to attainment, as 
found at 40 CFR part 81.
    EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds the newly-
established sub-area NOX and VOC MVEBs for the bi-state 
Charlotte Area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. 
Within 24 months from this final rule, the transportation partners will 
need to demonstrate conformity to the new sub-area NOX and 
VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area 
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources 
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does 
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in 
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that 
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,

[[Page 44881]]

EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the 
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state 
law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state or Federal law. For these 
reasons, these actions:
     Are not a significant regulatory actions subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or 
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: July 17, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. In Sec.  52.1770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding a 
new entry ``2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the North Carolina 
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area'' at the end of the table to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                State effective    EPA approval    Federal Register
           Provision                  date             date            citation              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
2008 8-hour ozone Maintenance        4/16/2015        7/28/2015   [insert Federal    ...........................
 Plan for the North Carolina                                       Register
 portion of the bi-state                                           citation]
 Charlotte Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Sec.  81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina--2008 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS (Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the 
entries for ``Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC,'' ``Cabarrus County (part),'' 
``Gaston County (part),'' ``Iredell County (part),'' ``Lincoln County 
(part),'' ``Mecklenburg County,'' ``Rowan County (part),'' and ``Union 
County (part)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.334  North Carolina.

* * * * *

[[Page 44882]]



                                     North Carolina--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation                            Classification
        Designated area         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Date \1\              Type               Date \1\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC \2\.  This action is      Attainment                               ..................
                                  effective 7/28/
                                  2015.
Cabarrus County (part).........                                                               ..................
Central Cabarrus Township,                                                                    ..................
 Concord Township, Georgeville
 Township, Harrisburg Township,
 Kannapolis Township, Midland
 Township, Mount Pleasant
 Township, New Gilead Township,
 Odell Township, Poplar Tent
 Township, Rimertown Township
Gaston County (part)                                                                          ..................
Crowders Mountain Township,                                                                   ..................
 Dallas Township, Gastonia
 Township, Riverbend Township,
 South Point Township
Iredell County (part)                                                                         ..................
Davidson Township, Coddle Creek                                                               ..................
 Township
Lincoln County (part)                                                                         ..................
Catawba Springs Township,                                                                     ..................
 Ironton Township, Lincolnton
 Township
Mecklenburg County                                                                            ..................
Rowan County (part)                                                                           ..................
Atwell Township, China Grove                                                                  ..................
 Township, Franklin Township,
 Gold Hill Township, Litaker
 Township, Locke Township,
 Providence Township, Salisbury
 Township, Steele Township,
 Unity Township
Union County (part)                                                                           ..................
Goose Creek Township,                                                                         ..................
 Marshville Township, Monroe
 Township, Sandy Ridge
 Township, Vance Township
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-18345 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P