Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6455 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Number 84.250. 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 369 

Grant programs—social programs, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Vocational rehabilitation. 

34 CFR Part 371 

Grant programs-Indians, Grant 

programs-social programs Indians, 

Vocational rehabilitation. 

Dated: February 2, 2015. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary amends parts 

369 and 371 of title 34 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 369—VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICE 

PROJECTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 369 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c), 741, 773, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 369.4(b) is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Reservation’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 369.4 What definitions apply to these 

programs? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation; public domain 

Indian allotment; former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma; land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act; or a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. 

(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 121(e) of the 

Act; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741(e)) 

* * * * * 

PART 371—VOCATIONAL 

REHABILITATION SERVICES 

PROJECTS FOR AMERICAN INDIANS 

WITH DISABILITIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 371 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 4. Section 371.4(b) is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Reservation’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 371.4 What definitions apply to this 

program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Reservation means a Federal or State 

Indian reservation; public domain 

Indian allotment; former Indian 

reservation in Oklahoma; land held by 

incorporated Native groups, regional 

corporations, and village corporations 

under the provisions of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act; or a 

defined area of land recognized by a 

State or the Federal Government where 

there is a concentration of tribal 

members and on which the tribal 

government is providing structured 

activities and services. 

(Authority: Sections 12(c) and 121(e) of the 

Act; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741(e)) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–02306 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0772; FRL–9922–42– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 

North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NC DENR) on 

January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 

11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, 

pertaining to state rule changes to the 

North Carolina Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program. 

Specifically, these SIP revisions update 

the North Carolina I/M program as well 

as repeal one rule that is included in the 

federally-approved SIP. In this final 

rulemaking, EPA is also responding to 

comments received on the proposed 

approval. 

DATES: This rule will be effective March 

9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2013–0772. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

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 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta Ward, 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. Ms. Ward 

can be reached by telephone at (404) 

562–9140 and via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

I. This Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

SIP revisions submitted on January 31, 

2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, 

and February 11, 2014, related to 

changes to North Carolina’s I/M 

regulations. On November 20, 2014, 

EPA published a direct final rulemaking 

to approve these changes into the SIP 

and published an accompanying 

proposed approval to the direct final 

rule in the event that EPA received 

adverse comment and withdrew the 

direct final rulemaking. See 79 FR 

69051. In the direct final rule, EPA 

stated that if adverse comments were 

received by December 22, 2014, the rule 

would be withdrawn and not take effect, 

the proposed rule would remain in 

effect, and an additional public 

comment period would not be 

instituted. 

On December 17, 2014, and December 

19, 2014, EPA received comments 

identified with the docket number for 

the aforementioned rulemaking actions. 

EPA withdrew the direct final rule on 

January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2612) and is 

now taking final action to approve the 

SIP revisions identified above. EPA has 

reviewed the changes included in these 

revisions and has determined that they 

are consistent with federal regulations 

and the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

II. Background 

The North Carolina I/M program 

began in 1982 in Mecklenburg County 

utilizing a ‘‘tail-pipe’’ emissions test. 

From 1986 through 1991 the program 

expanded to include eight additional 

counties (Wake, Forsyth, Guilford, 

Durham, Gaston, Cabarrus, Orange and 

Union County). In 1999, the North 

Carolina General Assembly passed 

legislation to expand the coverage area 

for the I/M program in order to gain 

additional emission reductions to 

achieve the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards in the 

State. This legislation expanded the I/M 

program from nine counties to 48 

counties by adding several counties 

approximately every six months from 

July 1, 2003, to July 1, 2006. The I/M 

program in the expanded coverage area 

used on-board diagnostic (OBD) rather 

than tail-pipe testing. On August 7, 

2002, North Carolina submitted a SIP 

revision to amend the I/M regulations 

included in the SIP at that time to, 

among other things, expand the counties 

subject to the I/M program as discussed 

above, require OBD in the subject 

counties for all model year (MY) 1996 

and newer light duty gasoline vehicles, 

and terminate the tail-pipe testing 

program on January 1, 2006, for the nine 

counties subject to continued tail-pipe 

testing of MY 1995 and older vehicles. 

EPA approved these changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program into the SIP on 

October 30, 2002. See 67 FR 66056. 

Since that time, North Carolina has 

submitted additional changes to its 

program, which EPA is now acting 

upon. Specifically, North Carolina 

submitted SIP revisions related to the 

State’s I/M program on January 31, 

2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, 

and February 11, 2014. EPA’s response 

to comments received on EPA’s 

November 20, 2014, rulemaking is 

provided in Section III of this 

rulemaking. EPA’s detailed analysis of 

these SIP revisions is provided in EPA’s 

direct final rulemaking published on 

November 20, 2014, and incorporated 

herein by reference. See 79 FR 69051. 

III. Response to Comments 

On December 19, 2014, EPA received 

comments on the proposed SIP 

revisions from an anonymous 

commenter and withdrew the direct 

final rule. EPA also received comments 

from the United States Department of 

Defense (DOD) on December 17, 2014. 

These comments are addressed below. 

Comment: EPA received a comment 

from DOD expressing concern regarding 

the language in 15A North Carolina 

Administrative Code (NCAC) 

02D.1002(a)(3) applying the I/M 

program to federal facilities. DOD 

believes that EPA should rescind its 

prior approval of section .1002(a)(3) into 

the SIP, disapprove North Carolina’s 

‘‘proposed revisions thereto,’’ and 

identify section .1002(a)(3) ‘‘as no 

longer approved as part of the SIP.’’ 

Response: These comments are not 

relevant to this rulemaking because EPA 

approved 15A NCAC 02D.1002(a)(3) 

into the SIP in 1995 (60 FR 28720 (June 

2, 1995)) and North Carolina did not 

propose any substantive changes to 

section .1002(a)(3) as part of its January 

31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 11, 

2013, and February 11, 2014 SIP 

submissions. The changes to 15A NCAC 

02D.1002(a)(3) are merely typographical 

due to a reorganization of section .1002 

and do not impact its scope or effect any 

substantive change in the regulations. 

Comment: EPA received a comment 

from an anonymous commenter who 

does not believe that EPA can approve 

the state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions because ‘‘North Carolina used 

the wrong modeling approach when 

determining whether the proposed 

revisions to the inspection program 

negatively affect the attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ The 

Commenter contends that North 

Carolina used MOVES modeling inputs 

that did not consider the removal of the 

State’s tailpipe emissions testing 

program and that the modeling 

approach is therefore inconsistent with 

EPA’s guidance on performance 

standard modeling and the use of 

MOVES to model changes to states’ I/M 

programs. According to the Commenter, 

proper modeling would show that 

‘‘simply expanding the required model 

years that are subject to inspection 

would not have gained the necessary 

emission reductions required to offset 

the loss of reductions from dropping 

tailpipe testing.’’ The Commenter also 

believes that ‘‘expanding the [I/M] 

program to the rest of the state cannot 

be included as a way to offset the 

reductions from the tailpipe testing’’ 

and that North Carolina ‘‘must show 

that for each nonattainment/

maintenance area, (1) dropping the 

tailpipe test still meets the applicable 

performance standard, and (2) the 

emission reductions provided in the 

past by the tailpipe test are offset by 

some other way since expanding the 

model years of new vehicles has 

typically not provided the requisite 

emissions reductions as tailpipe testing 

for older (more polluting) vehicles has 

done.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter. North Carolina’s January 

31, 2008 SIP submission asks EPA to 

remove the State’s regulation governing 

tailpipe testing, 15A NCAC 02D.1004, 

from the SIP. As the State noted in its 

2008 submission, 15A NCAC 02D.1004 

is obsolete because the tailpipe testing 

requirements of that rule expired on 

January 1, 2006, pursuant to subsection 

.1004(e). EPA approved the addition of 

15A NCAC 02D.1004(e) into the SIP in 

2002. See 67 FR 66056 (Oct. 30, 2002). 

Therefore, the SIP revision only 

eliminates inoperative regulatory text 

and does not ‘‘drop’’ tailpipe testing. 

The tailpipe testing requirement expired 

in 2006 pursuant to the terms of the 

regulation which EPA approved in 

2002. Therefore, this comment is not 

relevant to the SIP revisions EPA is 

acting on today. 

The removal of 15A NCAC 02D.1004 

from the SIP will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA because its 

removal has no impact on emissions. 

Tailpipe testing ended in North Carolina 

on January 1, 2006, and 15 NCAC 

02D.1004(e) had already been approved 

into the SIP at the time of the State’s 

2008 submission. Therefore, no 

modeling or other technical analysis is 

required to satisfy CAA Section 110(l). 

Moreover, the Commenter’s claim that 

North Carolina used an inappropriate 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 6457 

application of MOVES to demonstrate 

that the revisions to the I/M program 

will not interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment is 

based solely on the fact that the 

modeling did not consider removal of 

the tailpipe emissions testing provision. 

As explained above, the tailpipe 

emissions testing program expired 

pursuant to a previously-approved SIP 

revision, and therefore is not at issue in 

today’s action. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving North Carolina’s 

January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 

11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, SIP 

revisions pertaining to state rule 

changes to the State’s I/M program. EPA 

has determined that these SIP revisions 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

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. 

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 action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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). 

In addition, 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

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 April 6, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 26, 2015. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. In § 52.1770: 

■ a. Table 1, in paragraph (c) is 

amended by revising the entries for 

‘‘Sect .1002,’’ ‘‘Sect .1003,’’ ‘‘Sect 

.1004,’’ and ‘‘Sect .1005’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (e), the table is 

amended by adding a new entry ‘‘NonInterference Demonstration for the 

North Carolina Inspection and 

Maintenance Program’’ at the end of the 

table. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements 

******


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Section .1000 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Standard 

******

Sect .1002 ........ Applicability ..................................................................................... 1/1/2014 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation ].

Sect .1003 ........ Definitions ....................................................................................... 2/1/2014 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Sect .1004 ........ Tailpipe Emission Standards for CO and HC ................................ 7/11/2007 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Repealed. 

Sect .1005 ........ On-Board Diagnostic Standards .................................................... 1/1/2014 2/5/2015 ....................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Federal Register 

citation Explanation 

******

Non-Interference Demonstration for the North Carolina Inspection 

and Maintenance Program.

10/11/2013 ....... 2/5/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation].

[FR Doc. 2015–02071 Filed 2–4–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1991–0006; FRL–9922– 

55–Region 8] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of the Midvale Slag Superfund 

Site (Site), located in Salt Lake County, 

Utah, from the National Priorities List 

(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant 

to section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

Utah, through the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (UDEQ), because 

EPA has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance and fiveyear reviews of the Site, have been 

completed. However, this deletion does 

not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective April 6, 2015 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 9, 

2015. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1991–0006, by one of the 

following methods: (1) http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Email: waterman.erna@epa.gov (3) 

Fax: 303–312–7151 (4) Mail: Erna 

Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR– 

SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 

80202–1129 (5) Hand delivery: US EPA, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, EPR– 

SR, Denver, CO 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

EPA’s normal hours of operation (9 a.m. 

to 5 p.m.), and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1991– 

0006. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES