[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38986-38992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14036]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0449; FRL-9947-62-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of North Carolina through the North Carolina Division of Air 
Quality (NC DAQ) on May 31, 2013. North Carolina's May 31, 2013, SIP 
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic 
reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of 
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). 
EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's Progress Report on the 
basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination 
requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0449 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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 can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 and 
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under the Regional Haze Rule,\1\ each state was required to submit 
its first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment to EPA no later than December 17, 2007. See 40 CFR 
51.308(b). North Carolina submitted its regional haze plan on that 
date, and like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR), relied on CAIR to satisfy best available retrofit 
technology (BART) requirements for emissions of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric 
generating units (EGUs) in the State. On June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a 
limited disapproval of North Carolina's December 17, 2007 regional haze 
plan submission because of deficiencies arising from the State's 
reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. See 77 
FR 33642. In a separate action taken on June 27, 2012, EPA finalized a 
limited approval of North Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze 
plan submission, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze 
requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 
40 CFR 51.300-51.308. See 77 FR 38185. On October 31, 2014, the State 
submitted a regional haze plan revision to correct the deficiencies 
identified in the June 27, 2012, limited disapproval by replacing 
reliance on CAIR with reliance on the State's Clean Smokestacks Act 
(CSA) as an alternative to NOX and SO2 BART for 
BART-eligible EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. EPA approved that SIP 
revision on May 13, 2016, resulting in a full approval of North 
Carolina's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each state is also required to submit a progress report in the form 
of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the 
RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for 
each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be 
affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). Each 
state is also required to submit, at the same time as the progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of its existing regional haze 
plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years 
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan.
    On May 31, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g), NC DAQ submitted 
to EPA, in the form of a revision to North Carolina's SIP, a report on 
progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for 
Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from 
sources within the State. This submission also includes a negative 
declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State's regional 
haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Regional 
Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.300 et seq.). EPA is proposing to approve North 
Carolina's Progress Report on the basis that it satisfies the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) now that EPA has fully 
approved the State's regional haze plan.

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy 
Determinations

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress 
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a 
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in 
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A 
description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze 
plan; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment 
of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an 
analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the 
state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic 
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded 
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources, (6) an 
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze plan; and 
(7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.

[[Page 38987]]

B. Adequacy Determinations of the Current Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same 
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their 
existing regional haze plan and to take one of four possible actions 
based on information in the progress report. As described in further 
detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1) 
Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive 
revision to the state's existing regional haze plan is needed; (2) 
provide notification to EPA (and to other state(s) that participated in 
the regional planning process) if the state determines that its 
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from 
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning 
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop 
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification 
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its 
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from 
sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze plan to 
address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its 
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emissions from 
sources within the state.

III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's regional haze progress 
report and adequacy determination?

    On May 31, 2013, NC DAQ submitted a revision to North Carolina's 
regional haze plan to address progress made towards the RPGs for Class 
I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are 
affected by emissions from sources within North Carolina. This 
submittal also includes a determination of the adequacy of the State's 
existing regional haze plan. North Carolina has five Class I areas 
within its borders: Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), Joyce 
Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area (JOKI), Linville Gorge Wilderness Area 
(LIGO), Shining Rock Wilderness Area (SHRO), and Swanquarter Wildlife 
Refuge (SWAN). Both the Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer-
Slickrock Areas are located in North Carolina and Tennessee. In its 
regional haze plan, the State also identified, through an area of 
influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, one Class I 
area in one neighboring state potentially impacted by North Carolina 
sources: James River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. See 77 FR 11858, 
11869 (February 28, 2012).

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements 
that must be addressed by a progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); (2) 
how North Carolina's Progress Report addressed each element; and (3) 
EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State 
satisfied each element.
1. Status of Control Measures
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of 
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze plan for 
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
    The State evaluated the status of measures included in its 2007 
regional haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 
Specifically, in its Progress Report, North Carolina summarizes the 
status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the 
final iteration of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory 
and RPG modeling used by the State in developing its regional haze 
plan. The measures include, among other things, applicable Federal 
programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology standards), Federal consent agreements, and Federal and 
state control strategies for EGUs.\2\ The State also discusses the 
status of several measures that were not included in the final VISTAS 
emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional 
haze plan to meet RPGs. The State notes that the emissions reductions 
from these measures will help ensure Class I areas impacted by North 
Carolina sources achieve their RPGs. In aggregate, as noted in sections 
III.A.2 and III.A.6 of this document, the emissions reductions from the 
identified measures are expected to exceed the emissions reductions 
projected in North Carolina's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ North Carolina's progress report discusses the status of 
CAIR, CSAPR, and the CSA as of the date of submission. As noted 
above, North Carolina subsequently submitted a SIP revision to 
replace its reliance on CAIR as NOX and SO2 
BART for BART-eligible units formerly subject to CAIR with reliance 
on the CSA as a BART Alternative, and EPA approved that SIP revision 
on May 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that North Carolina's analysis adequately 
addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for the reasons discussed below. The 
State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional 
haze plan in addition to describing additional measures not originally 
accounted for in the final VISTAS emissions inventory that came into 
effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze plan were 
completed. The State's Progress Report also provides detailed 
information on EGU control strategies in its regional haze plan and the 
status of existing and future expected controls for North Carolina's 
EGUs because, in its regional haze plan, North Carolina identified 
SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs as the key contributor to 
regional haze in the VISTAS region. North Carolina discusses the status 
of the CSA, which the State identified as the primary state control 
strategy in its regional haze plan, and the resulting emissions 
reductions.\3\ Under the CSA, power plants were required to reduce 
their NOX emissions by 77 percent in 2009 and their 
SO2 emissions by 73 percent in 2013. The State notes that 
all of the CSA subject units are controlled with a scrubber for 
SO2 control and a selective catalytic reduction unit or a 
selective non-catalytic reduction for NOX control, or have 
retired, which will result in more SO2 and NOX 
emissions reductions than those projected in the regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ According to the State, in 2011, regulated sources under the 
CSA emitted 73,454 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 and 39,284 
tpy of NOX, well below the CSA's annual emissions caps 
for SO2 and NOX. The State also notes that the 
2018 current emissions projection of SO2 from the sources 
subject to CSA is 18,420 tpy, which is approximately 80 percent 
lower than the original 2018 projections used in the North Carolina 
regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Emissions Reductions and Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions 
achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1).
    In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, North Carolina 
focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of 
VISTAS' findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for more than 70 
percent of the visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states and 
that SO2 point source emissions in 2018 represent more than 
95 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the State.\4\ As 
discussed in section III.A.5, below, North Carolina determined that 
sulfates continue to be the largest contributor to regional haze for 
Class I areas in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For additional information, see North Carolina's December 
17, 2007, regional haze plan at page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Progress Report, North Carolina presents SO2 
emissions data for EGUs in the State and notes that North Carolina's 
EGU sector represents over 50 percent of statewide SO2 
emissions from stationary

[[Page 38988]]

sources. SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2011 for 
North Carolina EGUs (387,373 tpy) are greater than the SO2 
emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in North Carolina's 
regional haze plan for these EGUs (367,528 tpy). Additionally, the 
State updated the 2018 SO2 emissions projections for North 
Carolina EGUs in its regional haze plan. These updated 2018 
SO2 EGU emissions projections are approximately 80 percent 
lower than the projected 2018 SO2 emissions in the regional 
haze plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See page 32 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina states that coal-fired EGUs in North Carolina 
emitted a total of 370,000 tpy of SO2 in 2007, whereas in 
2011, these same EGUs emitted a total of 73,000 tpy of SO2, 
a reduction of 297,000 tpy, due largely to the installation and 
operation of scrubbers. The State expects that future SO2 
emissions will decline further from more natural gas use and the 
continued retirement of older, smaller coal-fired EGUs without 
scrubbers. NOX emissions from these EGUs dropped from a 
total of approximately 57,400 tpy in 2007 to approximately 39,300 tpy 
of NOX in 2011, an 18,100 tpy reduction.
    North Carolina identified the retirement of over 100 EGUs at 35 
facilities located in eight nearby states that VISTAS modeling 
indicates potentially impact visibility in North Carolina's Class I 
areas. These units emitted more than 550,000 tpy of SO2 in 
2011. The State believes that this is another indicator that the Class 
I areas in North Carolina are on track to meet their RPGs. North 
Carolina also discussed the SO2 emissions reductions that 
occurred at non-EGU facilities identified in its regional haze plan as 
contributing one percent or more to visibility impairment at any Class 
I area.
    EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately 
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, the State provides 
estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions of 
visibility-impairing pollutants resulting from the measures relied upon 
in its regional haze plan. The State appropriately focused on 
SO2 emissions from its EGUs in its Progress Report because 
the State had previously identified these emissions as the most 
significant contributors to visibility impairment at North Carolina's 
Class I areas and those areas that North Carolina sources impact.
3. Visibility Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide 
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days 
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of 
these annual values: \6\ (i) Current visibility conditions; (ii) the 
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline 
visibility conditions; and (iii) the change in visibility impairment 
over the past five years.
    North Carolina provides figures with visibility monitoring data 
that address the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for the 
State's five Class I areas. North Carolina reported current conditions 
as the 2006-2010 five-year time period and used the 2000-2004 baseline 
period for its Class I areas.\7\ Table 1, below, shows the current 
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility 
conditions and baseline visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in 
the regional haze refers to the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the 20 percent of monitored days in a 
calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility 
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR 
51.301.
    \7\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions 
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 
1, 1999).

   Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Class I Areas in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Baseline (2000- Current (2009-
                          Class I area                                 2004)           2013)        Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountain National Park..............................            30.3            26.6            -3.7
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock..........................................            30.3            26.6            -3.7
Linville Gorge..................................................            28.6            25.1            -3.5
Shining Rock....................................................            28.5            25.8            -2.7
Swanquarter.....................................................            24.7            24.2            -0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountain National Park..............................            13.6            12.3            -1.3
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock..........................................            13.6            12.3            -1.3
Linville Gorge..................................................            11.1              11            -0.1
Shining Rock....................................................             8.2            7.25           -0.95
Swanquarter.....................................................              12            12.9             0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All North Carolina Class I areas saw an improvement in visibility 
on the 20 percent worst days from 2006-2010 and between baseline and 
2006-2010 conditions. All North Carolina Class I areas except for 
Swanquarter Wildlife Refuge saw an improvement in visibility on the 20 
percent best days from 2006-2010 and between baseline and 2006-2010 
conditions.
    At Swanquarter, a 0.9 dv increase was recorded in the 20 percent 
best-day average between 2006-2010 conditions (12.9 dv) and the 2000-
2004 baseline (12.0 dv). This could be due, in part, to the fact that 
the visibility data for 2008 at Swanquarter did not meet EPA's data 
completeness criteria and was therefore removed from the 2006-2010 
average, resulting in a four-year average during this review period.\8\ 
Regardless, North Carolina believes that planned changes to operating 
status and emission controls on large sources within the Swanquarter 
area of influence provide sufficient evidence that by 2018, the 20 
percent best days will be protected.\9\ Furthermore, the 20 percent 
best-day average at Swanquarter has continued to improve, dropping to 
12.2 dv for 2007-2011.\10\ Based on the visibility data reported in the 
Western Regional Air

[[Page 38989]]

Partnership Technical Support System, the 20 percent best-day five year 
averages have continued to improve through 2014 and have dropped below 
the baseline beginning with the 2008-2012 average.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See USEPA (2003) ``Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the 
Regional Haze Rule,'' http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, pp. 2-8.
    \9\ See pp. 43-49 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
    \10\ See pp. 41-42 of the May 31, 2013, submission.
    \11\ See http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx Web site for dv between 2011-2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's Progress Report includes revised RPGs for the five 
Class I areas within the State. North Carolina's original RPGs were 
based on the VISTAS modeling run available at the time of the 2007 SIP 
revision. In 2008, VISTAS provided updated modeling results that 
changed the modeled progress for North Carolina's Class I areas. North 
Carolina seeks to include revised RPGs that reflect this modeled 
progress. Table 2 identifies the RPGs for North Carolina's Class I 
areas in the State's regional haze plan and the updated RPGs proposed 
in its Progress Report.

                            Table 2--Updated RPGs for North Carolina's Class 1 Areas
                                                   [Deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            RPG 20% worst                       RPG 20% best
                                             days (2007       RPG 20% worst      days (2007       RPG 20% best
              Class I areas                 regional haze      days (2013       regional haze      days (2013
                                                plan)       progress report)        plan)       progress report)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSMNP...................................              23.7              23.5              12.2              12.1
JOKI....................................              23.7              23.5              12.2              12.1
LIGO....................................              22.0              21.7               9.6               9.5
SHRO....................................              22.1              21.9               6.9               6.9
SWAN....................................              20.4              20.3              11.0              10.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to approve the updated RPGs for North Carolina's Class 
I areas because they reflect more recent modeling. Also, EPA proposes 
to conclude that North Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(3) because the State provides the information regarding 
visibility conditions and visibility changes necessary to meet the 
requirements of the regulation. The Progress Report includes current 
conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the years 2006-2010, the 
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline 
visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the 
five-year period 2006-2010.
4. Emissions Tracking
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emission changes 
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or 
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated 
emissions inventory.
    In its Progress Report, North Carolina presents data from statewide 
actual emissions inventories for 2008 and projected emissions 
inventories developed for the years 2009 and 2010. The State compares 
these data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002. The pollutants 
inventoried include volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX, 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and SO2. The 
emissions inventories include the following source classifications: 
Point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources.
    North Carolina includes the emissions inventories from the regional 
haze plan for 2002 and 2009, and summarizes emissions data from EPA's 
2008 National Emissions Inventory. North Carolina's analysis shows that 
2008 emissions are lower than 2002 emissions. North Carolina estimates 
on-road mobile source emissions in the 2008 and 2010 inventories using 
the MOVES2010a model. This model tends to estimate higher emissions 
than its previous counterpart, the MOBILE6 model used by the State to 
estimate on-road mobile source emissions for the 2002 and 2009 
inventories, especially for NOX emissions. North Carolina 
has concluded that MOVES model predictions for NOX can be 
1.7 to 2.1 times higher than MOBILE6. Despite the change in 
methodology, a declining trend in all pollutants can be seen between 
2002 and 2008 as seen in Table 4.
    North Carolina also includes an emission inventory for 2010 in its 
Progress Report. The State estimates 2010 point source emissions by 
taking the emissions reported by sources for 2010 and adding the latest 
emissions for the small sources that only report emissions every five 
years. This procedure differs from the procedure used by the State in 
its regional haze plan that included only those sources that reported 
emissions in 2002. In its 2010 inventory, North Carolina estimated that 
small sources that did not report contribute one percent of total 
NOX emissions, seven percent of total VOC emissions, one 
percent of total SO2 emissions, and seven percent of total 
PM2.5 emissions. North Carolina estimates area source 
emissions by growing the existing 2007 emissions inventory to 2010 and 
estimates non-road mobile source emissions using the EPA's NONROAD2008 
model for those sources covered by the model and growing the 2007 
airport, locomotive, and commercial marine emissions to 2010.
    North Carolina estimates on-road mobile source emissions for 2010 
using MOVES2010a with the latest vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and speed 
data. If 2010 speeds and VMT were not available for a particular 
county, interpolated or projected 2010 data was used. Using MOVES2010a, 
the on-road mobile emissions are higher than those that would be 
predicted using the older model. As seen in Tables 3 and 5, the 2010 
emissions inventory is significantly lower than the 2002 emissions 
inventory despite including additional stationary point sources and the 
use of MOVES, which predicts higher NOX emissions than its 
predecessor MOBILE6.2.

[[Page 38990]]



                          Table 3--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                        VOC             NOX             SO2            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          61,484         196,731         522,093          26,953
Area............................................         250,044          41,517           5,815          83,520
On-road Mobile..................................         263,766         327,329          12,420           4,623
Non-road Mobile.................................          94,480          84,284           7,693           7,348
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         669,774         649,861         548,021         122,444
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table 4--Actual 2008 Annual Emission Summary for North Carolina
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                        VOC             NOX             SO2            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          39,053          97,879         274,541          27,987
Area............................................         149,264          43,672          13,937          48,807
On-road Mobile..................................         122,503         253,849           1,190           7,895
Non-road Mobile.................................          72,754          52,469             980           4,924
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         383,573         447,869         290,648          89,613
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 5--2010 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                        VOC             NOX             SO2            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          42,504          90,155         151,210          13,966
Area............................................          83,274          11,353           5,105          23,114
On-road Mobile..................................         101,731         256,381           1,205           8,905
Non-road Mobile.................................          66,773          65,353           2,829           5,455
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         294,281         423,242         160,350          51,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When comparing the 2010 emissions (Table 5) with the projected 2009 
emissions (Table 6), the total emissions of each pollutant are lower in 
2010 with the exception of NOX. The slight increase in 2010 
NOX emissions is likely due to the use of MOBILE6 to 
estimate on-road mobile source NOX emissions for 2009 and 
the use of MOVES to estimate on-road mobile source NOX 
emissions for 2010. As noted above, MOVES predicts higher 
NOX emissions than MOBILE6.

                          Table 6--2009 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Source category                        VOC             NOX             SO2            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          62,161         101,236         284,802          26,360
Non-road Mobile.................................          74,056          70,997           1,892           5,760
Area............................................         200,873          45,382           6,281          90,729
On-road Mobile..................................         168,676         201,609           1,503           3,493
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         505,766         419,224         294,478         126,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately 
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). North Carolina tracked changes in 
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from 2002-2010 for all 
source categories and analyzed trends in emissions from 2002-2010, the 
most current quality-assured data available for these units at the time 
of progress report development. The 2010 emissions were also compared 
to the projected 2009 emissions, which were with the exception of 
NOX, as discussed above. While ideally the five-year period 
to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since 
the current regional haze plan was submitted, there is an inevitable 
time lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories 
once quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA 
believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period 
that states can select.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that 
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded 
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in 
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
    In its Progress Report, North Carolina documented that sulfates, 
which are

[[Page 38991]]

formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest single 
contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the State and 
therefore focused its analysis on large SO2 emissions from 
point sources. In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), 
North Carolina references its analyses that SO2 emissions 
from point sources show an overall downward trend over the period 2006 
to 2010 and examines other potential pollutants of concern affecting 
visibility in Class I areas in North Carolina. After ammonium sulfate, 
primary organic matter is the next largest contributor to visibility 
impairment at Class I areas in North Carolina. The State demonstrates 
that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO2, 
PM2.5, or NOX that have impeded progress in 
reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted 
by North Carolina sources. Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that 
the State is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I areas in 
North Carolina. For these reasons, EPA proposes to conclude that North 
Carolina's Progress Report has adequately addressed 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(5).
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current 
regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, 
to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the 
state.
    The State believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for 
the North Carolina Class I areas and will not impede Class I areas 
outside of North Carolina from meeting their RPGs based on the trends 
in visibility and emissions presented in its Progress Report. In its 
Progress Report, North Carolina provided reconstructed light extinction 
figures for the 20 percent worst days for all Class I areas in the 
Southeast for 2006 through 2010. The 20 percent worst days extinction 
clearly demonstrates that sulfates continue to be the major concern, 
with EGUs being the largest contributor. As identified in Table 3-1 of 
the Progress Report, the State estimates that SO2 emissions 
from EGUs in North Carolina have decreased by approximately 387,400 
tons per year from 2002 to 2011 and expects that these emissions will 
continue to decrease through the first regional haze planning period.
    The only coal-fired EGU in North Carolina which is in the area of 
influence (as defined by North Carolina's methodology) of the James 
River Face Class I area in Virginia was retired in April 2012. The 
SO2 emission reductions resulting from this retirement are 
expected to contribute to achieving the RPGs for the James River Face 
Class I area.
    EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately 
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a 
qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility 
trends and other readily available information, including expected 
emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates 
that have not yet become effective. In its assessment, the State 
references the improving visibility trends and the downward emissions 
trends in the State, with a focus on SO2 emissions from 
North Carolina EGUs. These trends support the State's determination 
that the State's regional haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for 
Class I areas within and outside the State impacted by North Carolina 
sources.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility 
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to 
the monitoring strategy are necessary.
    In its Progress Report, North Carolina summarizes the existing 
monitoring network in North Carolina and in Tennessee to monitor 
visibility in North Carolina's Class I areas in North Carolina and 
concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring 
strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for regional 
haze, both nationwide and in North Carolina, is the IMPROVE network. 
There are currently three IMPROVE sites in North Carolina (LIGO, SHRO, 
and SWAN). In addition, an IMPROVE site just across the border in 
Tennessee serves as the monitoring site for both the Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, 
both of which lie partly in Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.
    The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 
network for tracking visibility trends at Class I areas in North 
Carolina. North Carolina states that data produced by the IMPROVE 
monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the 
5-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which 
relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data, and thus, the 
monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible 
and to be kept up to date. The VIEWS Web site has been maintained by 
VISTAS and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready 
access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term 
limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides 
additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. North 
Carolina benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not 
responsible for associated funding decisions to maintain these 
measurements into the future.
    A continuous nitrate monitor operates at the Millbrook site in 
Raleigh and a second continuous nitrate monitor operates at the 
Rockwell monitoring site in Rowan County. The State plans to operate 
these monitors as long as funding and supplies allow. North Carolina 
began operating a continuous sulfate monitor at the Millbrook in August 
2007 and is currently operating aethalometers at the Millbrook and 
Rockwell sites.
    In addition, the NC DAQ and the local air agencies in the State 
operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter based 
Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter-
based speciated monitors, and continuous speciated monitors. These 
PM2.5 measurements help the NC DAQ characterize air 
pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in the 
analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Class I areas in 
North Carolina.
    EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina has adequately 
addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the 
IMPROVE monitoring network; assessed its entire visibility monitoring 
network, including additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5 
monitors, used to further understand visibility trends in the State; 
and determined that no changes to its monitoring strategy are 
necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four 
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made 
in the progress report. The following section summarizes: (1) The 
action taken by North Carolina under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) North 
Carolina's rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis 
and proposed determination regarding the State's action.
    In its Progress Report, North Carolina took the action provided for 
by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative 
declaration to EPA if

[[Page 38992]]

the state determines that the existing regional haze plan requires no 
further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class 
I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for the State's 
negative declaration is the findings from the Progress Report, 
including the findings that: Visibility has improved at Class I areas 
(with the exception of the best-days visibility at SWAN as discussed 
above) in North Carolina; SO2 emissions from the State's 
sources have decreased beyond the 2018 projections in the regional haze 
plan; additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the State's 
regional haze plan have occurred or will occur in the implementation 
period; and the EGU SO2 emissions in North Carolina are 
already below the levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze plan 
and are expected to continue to trend downward. EPA proposes to 
conclude that North Carolina has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) 
because the visibility trends at the Class I areas impacted by the 
State's sources and the emissions trends of the State's largest 
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants indicate that the RPGs for 
Class I areas impacted by source in North Carolina will be met.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's Regional Haze Progress 
Report, SIP revision, submitted by the State on May 31, 2013, as 
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and (h). EPA also proposes to approve the updated RPGs for 
North Carolina's Class I areas.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is 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.);
     Does 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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is 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
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 1, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-14036 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P