64896 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

0924. For service information related to this 

AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, 

Commodore House, Mountbatten Business 

Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton 

SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 

20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email: 

info@bnaircraft.com; Internet: http://

www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. 

You may review this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

(816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

October 23, 2013. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25703 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0563; FRL–9902– 

18–Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina: 

Non-Interference Demonstration for 

Removal of Federal Low-Reid Vapor 

Pressure Requirement for the RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of North Carolina’s March 27, 

2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision to the State’s approved 

Maintenance Plan for the RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill (Triangle) 1997 8- 

hour Ozone Maintenance Area. 

Specifically, North Carolina’s revision, 

including updated modeling, shows that 

the Triangle Area would continue to 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard if the currently applicable 

Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

standard for gasoline from 7.8 pounds 

per square inch (psi) were modified to 

9.0 psi for three portions (Wake and 

Durham Counties, and a portion of 

Granville County) of the ‘‘Triangle 

Area’’ of North Carolina during the 

high-ozone season. The State has 

included a technical demonstration 

with the revision to demonstrate that a 

less-stringent RVP standard of 9.0 psi in 

these areas would not interfere with 

continued maintenance of the 1997 8- 

hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any 

other applicable standard. Approval of 

this SIP revision is a prerequisite for 

EPA’s consideration of an amendment 

to the regulations to remove the 

aforementioned portions of the Triangle 

Area from the list of areas that are 

currently subject to the Federal 7.8 psi 

RVP requirements. In addition, EPA is 

also proposing to approve changes to 

the motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) used in the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. 

The use of new models and the 

relaxation of the RVP requirement has 

resulted in a revised safety margin 

which North Carolina is reallocating 

among the MVEBs associated the 

Maintenance Plan. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that North 

Carolina’s March 27, 2013, SIP revision 

with respect to the changes to the 

modeling and associated technical 

demonstration associated with the 

State’s request for the removal of the 

Federal RVP requirements, and with 

respect to the updated MVEBs, is 

consistent with the applicable 

provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). Should EPA decide to remove the 

subject portions of the Triangle Area 

from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi 

Federal RVP requirements, such action 

will occur in a subsequent rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 29, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2013–0563 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0563, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0563. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64897 

1As discussed further below, a separate 

rulemaking is required for relaxation of the current 

requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi 

in the Triangle Area. While EPA evaluates the 

approvability of North Carolina’s revision to the 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 110(l), the 

decision regarding removal of Federal RVP 

requirements pursuant to section 211(h) in the 

Triangle Area is made at the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

2 In addition to a less stringent RVP standard, the 

new modeling also utilizes updated models for onroad and off-road mobile emission sources. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman of the Regulatory 

Development Section, in 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. Mr. 

Lakeman may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043, or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being proposed? 

II. What is the background of the Triangle 

Area? 

III. What is the history of the gasoline 

volatility requirement? 

IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of North Carolina’s 

submittal? 

VI. Mobile Source Inventories and Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets Update 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being proposed? 

The Triangle Area in North Carolina 

is currently designated attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

Area was redesignated from 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS on December 26, 2007. See 72 

FR 72948. This rulemaking proposes to 

approve a revision to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone Maintenance Plan for the Triangle 

Area submitted by the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR). Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to approve changes to the 

maintenance plan, including updated 

modeling, that show that the Triangle 

Area can continue to maintain the 1997 

ozone standard without reliance on 

emission reductions based upon the use 

of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in any 

of the Triangle Area counties during the 

high ozone season—June 1 through 

September 15.1 EPA is also proposing to 

conclude that the new modeling 

demonstrates that the area would 

continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard with the use of gasoline with 

an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the 

Triangle Area during the high ozone 

season. Consistent with section 110(l) of 

the Act, EPA also proposes to conclude 

that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 

9.0 psi throughout the Maintenance 

Plan Areas during the high ozone season 

would not interfere with other 

applicable requirements. 

The new modeling conducted by 

North Carolina to account for the 

proposed relaxation of the applicable 

RVP standard in a portion of the 

Triangle Area also results in changes to 

the safety margin associated with the 

maintenance plan.2 As such, the North 

Carolina revision includes a reallocation 

of the safety margin among the NOx 

MVEBs for the Triangle Area. EPA is 

also proposing approval of this revision. 

This preamble is hereafter organized 

into five parts. Section II provides the 

background of the Triangle Area 

designation status with respect to the 

various Ozone NAAQS. Section III 

describes the applicable history of 

federal gasoline regulation. Section IV 

provides the Agency’s policy regarding 

relaxation of the volatility standards. 

Section V provides EPA’s analysis of the 

information submitted by North 

Carolina to support a relaxation of the 

more stringent volatility standard in the 

Triangle Area. Finally, Section VI 

describes the changes to the MVEBs 

associated with Maintenance Plan for 

the Triangle Area and provides EPA’s 

analysis regarding the proposed 

revision. 

II. What is the background of the 

Triangle Area? 

In 1991, the Triangle Area was 

designated as a moderate nonattainment 

area pursuant to the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 

1991). Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

the Triangle nonattainment area was 

composed of Durham and Wake 

Counties, and the Dutchville Township 

portion of Granville County. Among the 

requirements applicable to 

nonattainment areas for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS was the requirement to 

meet certain volatility standards (known 

as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for 

gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 

23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in 

greater detail below, as part of the RVP 

requirements associated with its 

nonattainment designation, gasoline 

sold in the Triangle 1-hour 

nonattainment area could not exceed 7.8 

psi RVP during the high-ozone season 

months. 

Following implementation of the 7.8 

psi RVP requirement in the Triangle 

Area, on April 18, 1994, the Area was 

redesignated to attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone standard, based on 1989– 

1992 ambient air quality monitoring 

data. See 59 FR 18300. North Carolina’s 

redesignation request for the 1-hour 

ozone Triangle Area did not, however, 

include a request for the Area to be 

removed from the list of areas subject to 

the 7.8 psi RVP standard. As such, the 

7.8 RVP requirement remained in place 

for Durham and Wake Counties, and the 

Dutchville Township portion of 

Granville County when the Triangle 

Area was designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

Triangle Area was expanded from 

Durham and Wake Counties, and the 

Dutchville Township portion of 

Granville County, to also include 

Franklin, Johnston, Orange, and Person 

Counties, the remainder of Granville 

County and Baldwin, Center, New Hope 

and Williams Townships in Chatham 

County. See 69 FR 23857. In 2007, the 

Triangle Area was redesignated to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 72 FR 72948, December 26, 

2007. The Triangle Area was later 

designated as attainment for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088, 

May 21, 2012. 

III. What is the history of the gasoline 

volatility requirement? 

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), 

EPA determined that gasoline 

nationwide had become increasingly 

volatile, causing an increase in 

evaporative emissions from gasolinepowered vehicles and equipment. 

Evaporative emissions from gasoline, 

referred to as volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), are precursors to the 

formation of tropospheric ozone and 

contribute to the nation’s ground-level 

ozone problem. Exposure to groundlevel ozone can reduce lung function 

(thereby aggravating asthma or other 

respiratory conditions), increase 

susceptibility to respiratory infection, 

and may contribute to premature death 

in people with heart and lung disease. 

The most common measure of fuel 

volatility that is useful in evaluating 

gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. 

Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA 

promulgated regulations on March 22, 

1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum 

limits for the RVP of gasoline sold 

during the high ozone season. These 

regulations constituted Phase I of a twophase nationwide program, which was 

designed to reduce the volatility of 

commercial gasoline during the high 

ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 

23658), EPA promulgated more 

stringent volatility controls as Phase II 

of the volatility control program. These 

requirements established maximum 

RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi 

(depending on the State, the month, and 

the area’s initial ozone attainment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64898 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990), 56 FR 24242 

(May 29, 1991) and 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991). 

4While EPA evaluates the approvability of North 

Carolina’s revision to the maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 110(l), the decision regarding 

removal of Federal RVP requirements pursuant to 

section 211(h) in the Triangle Area is made at the 

discretion of the Administrator. 

5The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes 

health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, 

NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2. 

designation with respect to the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS during the high ozone 

season). 

The 1990 CAA Amendments 

established a new section, 211(h), to 

address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) 

requires EPA to promulgate regulations 

making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, 

dispense, supply, offer for supply, 

transport, or introduce into commerce 

gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 

9.0 psi during the high ozone season. 

Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from 

establishing a volatility standard more 

stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment 

area, except that we may impose a lower 

(more stringent) standard in any former 

ozone nonattainment area redesignated 

to attainment. 

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), 

EPA modified the Phase II volatility 

regulations to be consistent with section 

211(h) of the CAA. The modified 

regulations prohibited the sale of 

gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in 

all areas designated attainment for 

ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas 

designated as nonattainment, the 

regulations retained the original Phase II 

standards published on June 11, 1990 

(55 FR 23658). 

As stated in the preamble to the Phase 

II volatility controls and reiterated in 

the proposed change to the volatility 

standards published in 1991, EPA will 

rely on states to initiate changes to 

EPA’s volatility program that they 

believe will enhance local air quality 

and/or increase the economic efficiency 

of the program within the limits of CAA 

section 211(h).3 In those rulemakings, 

EPA explained that the Governor of a 

State may petition EPA to set a volatility 

standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for 

some month or months in a 

nonattainment area. The petition must 

demonstrate such a change is 

appropriate because of a particular local 

economic impact and that sufficient 

alternative programs are available to 

achieve attainment and maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current 

listing of the RVP requirements for 

states can be found on EPA’s Web site 

at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/

gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm. 

As explained in the December 12, 

1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II 

rulemaking, EPA believes that 

relaxation of an applicable RVP 

standard in a nonattainment area is best 

accomplished in conjunction with the 

redesignation process. In order for an 

ozone nonattainment area to be 

redesignated as an attainment area, 

section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the 

state to make a showing, pursuant to 

section 175A of the Act, that the area is 

capable of maintaining attainment for 

the ozone NAAQS for ten years after 

redesignation. Depending on the area’s 

circumstances, this maintenance plan 

will either demonstrate that the area is 

capable of maintaining attainment for 

ten years without the more stringent 

volatility standard or that the more 

stringent volatility standard may be 

necessary for the area to maintain its 

attainment with the ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, in the context of a request for 

redesignation, EPA will not relax the 

volatility standard unless the state 

requests a relaxation and the 

maintenance plan demonstrates, to the 

satisfaction of EPA, that the area will 

maintain attainment for ten years 

without the need for the more stringent 

volatility standard. As noted above, 

however, North Carolina did not request 

relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi RVP 

standard when the Triangle Area was 

redesignated to attainment for the either 

the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Rather, North Carolina is now 

seeking to relax the 7.8 psi RVP 

standard after the Triangle Area has 

been redesignated to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the original modeling and 

maintenance demonstration supporting 

the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan must be revised to reflect 

continued attainment under the relaxed 

9.0 psi RVP standard that the State has 

requested. 

IV. What are the section 110(l) 

requirements? 

Section 110(l) requires that a revision 

to the SIP not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) (as defined in section 

171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. EPA’s criterion 

for determining the approvability of 

North Carolina’s March 27, 2013, SIP 

revision is whether this requested action 

complies with section 110(l) of the 

CAA. Because the modeling associated 

with the current maintenance plan for 

North Carolina is premised in part upon 

the 7.8 psi RVP requirements, a request 

to revise the maintenance plan 

modeling to no longer rely on the 7.8 psi 

RVP requirement is subject to the 

requirements of CAA section 110(l). 

Therefore, the State must demonstrate 

that this revision will not interfere with 

the attainment or maintenance of any of 

the NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

This section 110(l) non-interference 

demonstration is a case-by-case 

determination based upon the 

circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA 

interprets 110(l) as applying to all 

NAAQS that are in effect, including 

those that have been promulgated but 

for which the EPA has not yet made 

designations. The specific elements of 

the 110(l) analysis contained in the SIP 

revision depend on the circumstances 

and emissions analyses associated with 

that revision. EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s March 27, 2013, SIP revision, 

including review of section 110(l) 

requirements is provided below. 

Finally, EPA notes that this 

rulemaking is only proposing to approve 

the State’s revision to its existing 

maintenance plan for the Triangle Area 

showing that the area can continue to 

maintain the standard without relying 

upon gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi 

being sold in the Triangle area during 

the high ozone season. Consistent with 

CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II 

volatility regulations a separate 

rulemaking is required for relaxation of 

the current requirement to use gasoline 

with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Triangle 

area.4

V. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s submittal? 

a. Overall Preliminary Non-Interference 

Analyses Conclusions for North 

Carolina’s Request for the Revision of 

the Maintenance Plan 

As discussed above, on March 27, 

2013, NC DENR submitted a revision to 

the existing maintenance plan for the 

Triangle 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area. Specifically, NC 

DENR revised the modeling for on-road 

mobile, off-road mobile, and area source 

emissions. The modeling was revised to 

show the emission changes that would 

result from relaxing the gasoline RVP 

requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for 

the Triangle Area during the high ozone 

season. North Carolina’s March 27, 

2013, SIP revision also included an 

evaluation of the impact that the 

removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement 

would have on maintenance of the 1997 

and 2008 ozone standards and on other 

applicable NAAQS. For the purposes of 

this proposed change to the applicable 

RVP requirement, EPA is making the 

preliminary determination that the 

relevant NAAQS 5 for consideration in 

the non-interference demonstration 

required by section 110(l) of the CAA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64899 

are the ozone, particulate matter and 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards. 

VOC and NOX emissions are 

precursors for ozone and particulate 

matter (PM), and NO2 is a component of 

NOX. In addition, EPA also believes 

that, in this instance, it is appropriate to 

also evaluate non-interference with 

respect to the carbon monoxide (CO) 

NAAQS. Typically, EPA would not 

expect the CO NAAQS to be affected by 

a change to RVP requirements because 

VOC and NOX are not precursors to CO. 

The revised modeling submitted by 

North Carolina, however, demonstrates 

a slight increase in CO emissions, and 

as such, EPA believes a non-interference 

review for CO is also appropriate in this 

case. 

There are no emissions reductions 

attributable to the emissions of lead and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) from RVP 

requirements. As a result, there is no 

information indicating the proposed 

change would have any impact on those 

NAAQS. Additionally, the Triangle 

Area is currently designated attainment 

for the lead NAAQS, and is continuing 

to attain the standard. As for the SO2

NAAQS, the Triangle Area is not 

designated nonattainment, and there is 

no available monitoring data indicating 

an exceedance of the NAAQS. 

Therefore, the analysis below focuses on 

the impact of North Carolina’s changes 

to the RVP requirements on the ozone, 

particulate matter, NO2 and CO NAAQS. 

To determine the emissions reviewed 

in the technical demonstration included 

with the March 27, 2013, SIP revision, 

NC DENR compared the 2005 baseline 

emissions inventory to the 2017 

projected emissions inventory. The 

baseline emissions inventory represents 

an emission level for a period when the 

applicable ambient air quality standard 

was not violated, 2004–2006. NC DENR 

concluded that if projected emissions 

remain at or below the baseline 

emissions, continued maintenance is 

demonstrated and the ambient air 

quality standard should not be violated 

in the future. In addition to comparing 

the final year of the maintenance plan, 

NC DENR’s technical demonstration 

also compares all of the interim years to 

the 2005 baseline to demonstrate that 

these years are also expected to show 

continued maintenance of all NAAQS. 

Also, in North Carolina’s March 27, 

2013, SIP revision, NC DENR provided 

an updated analysis utilizing the 

MOVES model to calculate on-road 

emissions that are used as part of the 

evaluation of the potential impacts for 

the ozone NAAQS that might result 

exclusively from changing the high 

ozone season RVP requirements from 

7.8 psi to the requirement of 9.0 psi. 

Relaxation of the RVP standard from 7.8 

psi to 9.0 psi revealed a slight increase 

in emissions of 0.30 tons per day (tpd) 

(a 0.20 percent increase) in NOX and 

3.88 tpd (a 2.44 percent increase) in 

VOC for Durham, Granville and Wake 

Counties. While the modeling showed a 

slight increase in NOX and VOC 

emissions resulting from the use of 9.0 

psi RVP as opposed to 7.8 psi, the most 

appropriate analysis for purposes of 

evaluating non-interference is whether 

total area emissions from all emissions 

inventory sources (i.e., point and area 

stationary, and on-road and non-road 

mobile) in the future years would 

remain at or below the level determined 

to be consistent with maintenance of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. To provide this 

full evaluation, the State compared total 

man-made emissions of VOC and NOX

for the year 2005 (base year), 2008 and 

2011 using a RVP of 7.8 psi (for 

Durham, Granville and Wake Counties 

only as the remaining Triangle Area 

Counties are currently using a RVP of 

9.0 psi) to emissions generated for the 

years 2014 and 2017, using a RVP of 9.0 

psi. 

There are four different man-made 

emission inventory source 

classifications; 1) point, 2) area, 3) onroad mobile and 4) off-road mobile. 

Point sources are those stationary 

sources that emit more than 10 tons per 

year of VOC or 100 tons per year of NOX

from a single facility. The source 

emissions are tabulated from data 

collected by direct on-site 

measurements of emissions or mass 

balance calculations utilizing emission 

factors from EPA’s AP–42, Compilation 

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. For 

the projected year’s inventory, point 

sources are adjusted by growth factors 

based on Standard Industrial 

Classification codes. The growth factors 

are generated using the EPA’s Economic 

Growth Analysis System version 5.0 (E– 

GAS 5.0) program. Area sources are 

those stationary sources whose 

emissions are relatively small but due to 

the large number of these sources, the 

collective emissions could be significant 

(i.e., dry cleaners, service stations, etc.). 

For area sources, emissions are 

estimated by multiplying an emission 

factor by some known indicator of 

collective activity such as production, 

number of employees, or population. 

These types of emissions are estimated 

on the county level. For the projected 

year’s inventory, area source emissions 

are changed by population growth, 

projected production growth, or when 

applicable, by E–GAS 5.0 growth 

factors. On-road mobile sources are 

those vehicles that travel on the 

roadways. For on-road mobile sources, 

the MOVES model results represent the 

new motor vehicle emission budgets for 

the Triangle area. Off-road mobile 

sources are equipment that can move 

but do not use the roadways (e.g., lawn 

mowers, construction equipment, 

railroad locomotives, and aircraft). With 

the exception of the railroad 

locomotives and aircraft engines, the 

emissions from this category are 

calculated using the EPA’s 

NONROAD2008a non-road mobile 

model. The railroad locomotive and 

aircraft engine emissions are estimated 

by taking an activity and multiply by an 

emission factor. All emissions are also 

estimated at the county level. Total offroad mobile source emissions represent 

the sum of emissions generated by the 

NONROAD 2008a model and emissions 

calculated for aircraft and railroad 

locomotives. 

Despite the small increases in 

emissions from the change to the RVP 

control, the Triangle Area continues to 

demonstrate a downward trend in NOX

and VOC emissions through 2017. 

Tables 1 and 2 below provide the results 

of this analysis for the entire Triangle 

Area (including the three Counties 

(noted in italics) affected by the 

proposed RVP relaxation). 

TABLE 1—TOTAL MAN-MADE VOC EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE TRIANGLE MAINTENANCE AREA

County 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 

Chatham * ............................................................................. 5.52 5.57 5.23 5.00 4.85 

Durham ................................................................................ 25.94 23.27 20.93 19.47 18.31 

Franklin ................................................................................ 11.81 11.55 11.20 11.14 11.23 

Granville ............................................................................... 12.78 12.38 11.98 11.85 11.90 

Johnston ............................................................................... 30.58 29.43 28.31 27.73 27.57 

Orange ................................................................................. 15.42 14.35 13.10 12.13 11.35 

Person .................................................................................. 9.00 8.65 8.32 8.12 8.07 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64900 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6The air quality design value for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual 

4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is 0.075 ppm. The 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is not met when the design value is greater 

than 0.075 ppm. 

TABLE 1—TOTAL MAN-MADE VOC EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE TRIANGLE MAINTENANCE AREA—Continued 

County 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 

Wake .................................................................................... 87.45 81.34 75.61 72.33 69.85 

Total .............................................................................. 198.50 186.54 174.68 167.77 163.13 

* Emissions for Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County only. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL MAN-MADE NOX EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE TRIANGLE MAINTENANCE AREA

County 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 

Chatham * ............................................................................. 5.01 4.44 3.79 3.17 2.73 

Durham ................................................................................ 39.48 35.16 28.45 23.52 19.73 

Franklin ................................................................................ 7.68 6.55 5.37 4.49 3.82 

Granville ............................................................................... 10.94 8.98 7.01 5.56 4.57 

Johnston ............................................................................... 34.22 28.94 23.19 19.32 16.47 

Orange ................................................................................. 23.37 20.64 16.53 13.52 11.31 

Person .................................................................................. 37.48 31.38 31.20 31.02 29.72 

Wake .................................................................................... 106.52 98.12 83.82 69.97 59.06 

Total .............................................................................. 264.70 234.21 199.36 170.57 147.41 

* Emissions for Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County only. 

As Table 1 and 2 indicate, NOX and 

VOC emissions in the Triangle Area will 

continue to decrease, even with the 

increase in high ozone season fuel RVP 

to 9.0 psi. The slight increase in 

emissions is being mitigated area-wide 

by a steady decrease in tailpipe 

emissions, which is the result of cleaner 

new vehicle fleet replacing the older 

fleet and other Federal and State 

emissions reduction programs. As 

discussed below, based on this data, 

together with air quality data, and 

maintenance demonstrations and 

attainment designations for the NAAQS, 

EPA is making the preliminary 

determination that the slight increase in 

NOX and VOC emissions resulting from 

this change will not interfere with the 

Area’s ability to maintain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, or any other 

applicable requirement. More details on 

the individual non-interference analyses 

for the ozone, PM, NO2 and CO NAAQS 

are provided below. 

b. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

Ozone NAAQS 

Effective June 15, 2004, the Triangle 

Area was designated as nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

primary precursors for ozone are VOC 

and NOX emissions. As a previous 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area, Durham 

and Wake Counties and a portion of 

Granville County in the Triangle Area 

were already subject to the Federal RVP 

requirements for high ozone season 

gasoline to aid the Area with 

compliance with the ozone NAAQS. 

Although originally implemented for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Federal 

RVP requirements continued to apply to 

Durham and Wake Counties and a 

portion of Granville County for the 1997 

and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and are 

still in effect. 

On June 7, 2007, NC DENR submitted 

a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. NC DENR used the 

MOBILE6.2 mobile source emissions 

model to estimate the emissions for onroad sources and NONROAD2005c nonroad mobile model for off-road sources. 

In the years 2014 and 2017, NC DENR 

projected a reduction from the 2005 

base year inventory of approximately 38 

percent and 45 percent (respectively) in 

NOX emissions (in tpd). The projected 

reduction of VOC emissions (in tpd) for 

the years 2014 and 2017 is 

approximately 36 percent and 44 

percent, respectively, from the 2005 

base year emissions inventory. 

There is an overall downward trend 

in ozone concentration in the Triangle 

Area that can be attributed to Federal 

and State programs that have led to 

significant emissions reductions. On 

December 26, 2007, (72 FR 72948), EPA 

approved North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle 

Area, and redesignated the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The Triangle Area is 

continuing to meet the 1-hour and 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS,6 and is meeting 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based 

on recent air quality monitoring data. 

The 2008 ozone NAAQS is met when 

the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average concentration, 

averaged over 3 years is 75 parts per 

million (ppm) or less. 

As mentioned above, on December 26, 

2007 (72 FR 72948), EPA approved 

North Carolina’s June 7, 2007, 

maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. 

This maintenance plan contained 

MVEBs for NOX and an insignificance 

determination for VOC contribution 

from motor vehicles to the 8-hour ozone 

pollution in the Triangle Area. For the 

purposes of regional emissions analysis, 

the information provided by North 

Carolina supported EPA’s determination 

that VOC contribution to 8-hour ozone 

pollution from motor vehicles in the 

Triangle Area as insignificant for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Specifically, the future on-road VOC 

emissions were projected to be less than 

10 percent in the Triangle Area, in the 

context of the total SIP inventory. 

According to information provided by 

North Carolina, biogenic emissions 

account for approximately 90 percent of 

the VOC emissions in future years in the 

Triangle Area. 

In addition, North Carolina conducted 

a emissions sensitivity analysis that 

indicated that 1997 and 2008 8-hour 

ozone levels in the Triangle Area were 

not impacted by reductions in manmade VOC emissions (e.g., reductions 

from motor vehicles). Specifically, the 

photochemical model was run for a 39- 

day scenario in 2009 with a 30 percent 

reduction in all man-made VOC 

emissions. In addition, two mobile 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64901 

7One simulation ran a 50 percent increase in 

mobile source emissions in the Triangle ozone 

nonattainment counties and the second ran a 50 

percent decrease in mobile source emissions in the 

counties. 

8Future decreases in the inventory are an order 

of magnitude greater than the increases associated 

with the change in RVP. 

source specific sensitivity simulations 7

were conducted by NCDAQ over a 7-day 

period to specifically focus on the 

impact of mobile source emissions on 

ozone formation. None of these 

emissions sensitivity simulations 

resulted in a significant response in 

ozone formation. This supports the 

State’s proposal that the highway 

mobile VOC emissions are insignificant 

contributors to ozone formation. 

The current design value for ozone for 

the Triangle Area for 2010–2012 is 0.075 

ppm and the preliminary 2011–2013 

design value is 0.071 ppm for this Area. 

EPA also evaluated the potential 

increase in the VOC and NOX precursor 

emissions, and whether it is reasonable 

to conclude that the requested change to 

RVP requirements in Durham, Granville 

and Wake Counties during the high 

ozone season would cause the Area to 

be out of compliance with the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

In light of the current designations, 

monitoring and emissions data, and the 

submitted modeling, including the fact 

that the NOX emissions inventories are 

projected to continue to significantly 

decrease,8 EPA has preliminarily 

determined that North Carolina’s 

revision of the maintenance plan to no 

longer rely on gasoline with 7.8 psi RVP 

requirement in Durham, Granville and 

Wake Counties will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the ozone 

NAAQS. As Table 3 indicates the design 

value (DV) for the Triangle Area shows 

that the Area is meeting the NAAQS. 

TABLE 3—TRIANGLE AREA DESIGN VALUE

2004–2006 DV 

(ppm) 

2005–2007 DV 

(ppm) 

2006–2008 DV 

(ppm) 

2007–2009 DV 

(ppm) 

2008–2010 DV 

(ppm) 

2009–2011 DV 

(ppm) 

2010–2012 DV 

(ppm) 

0.080 ................................ 0.081 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.073 0.075 

c. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM 

NAAQS 

The precursors for PM2.5 are NOX, 

SO2, VOC and ammonia. For the 

Triangle Area, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile and area sources are not believed 

to be large contributors to directly 

emitted fine particulate matter less than 

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) or indirectly 

formed PM2.5 concentrations. As 

mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, 

the RVP requirements result in 

emissions benefits for VOC and NOX so 

EPA focused on these precursors for the 

analysis of the potential impact of North 

Carolina’s SIP change. However, as 

described in North Carolina’s March 27, 

2013, submission, directly emitted 

PM2.5 is a very small component of the 

overall PM2.5 ambient concentrations. 

Instead, the primary species impacting 

PM2.5 concentrations are the secondarily 

formed sulfates and organic carbons. 

Sulfates are formed through the 

chemical reaction of SO2 and ammonia, 

and the majority of the organic carbons 

come from natural sources like trees. 

See ‘‘Redesignation Demonstration and 

Maintenance Plan for the Hickory 

(Catawba County) and Greensboro/

Winston-Salem/High Point (Davidson 

and Guilford Counties) Fine Particulate 

Matter Nonattainment Areas’’, 

submitted to EPA on 18 December 2009, 

Figure 4–2, p. 4–4, which can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

1010. A 2009 analysis of SO2 emissions, 

which is a primary contributor to the 

formation of PM2.5 within North 

Carolina, found about 3.3 percent of 

total SO2 emissions came from on-road, 

off-road and area sources combined, 

while the remaining 96.7 percent came 

from point sources. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. On January 15, 2013 (78 

FR 3086), EPA established an annual 

primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 mg/m3

based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA retained the 2006 24-hour NAAQS 

at 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 

On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), all 

counties in the Triangle Area were 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, and on 

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), all 

counties in the Triangle Area were 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As 

Table 4 indicates the PM2.5 annual and 

24-hour design values demonstrate 

attainment of the respective NAAQS 

and those for the annual standard have 

been decreasing. 

TABLE 4—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES

Year 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Annual Standard 

Design Value ............................................................................................................................... 10.4 9.8 10.0 

24-hour Standard 

Design Value ............................................................................................................................... 22 22 22 

In light of the fact that a change to the 

NC Maintenance Plan to no longer rely 

on gasoline with a 7.8 psi RVP 

requirement will only result in a slight 

increase in VOC and NOX emissions, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

a change to the Federal RVP 

requirement for Durham, Granville and 

Wake Counties would not interfere with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64902 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9See table 2 above. 

10 In the December 26, 2007 final rule EPA also 

approved NC DENR’s determination that on-road 

emissions of VOCs are insignificant for 

transportation conformity purposes. We are not 

addressing that insignificance finding in today’s 

proposal. 

the Triangle Area maintaining the 1997 

PM2.5 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. 

d. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS 

On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), 

EPA finalized designations for 2010 NO2

NAAQS. Counties in North Carolina, 

including those in the Triangle Area, 

were designated unclassifiable/

attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Based on North Carolina’s March 27, 

2013, SIP revision, EPA has evaluated 

the potential increase in the NOX

emissions (approximately a quarter of a 

ton per day between June 1st and 

September 15th) and whether it is 

reasonable to believe that North 

Carolina’s requested change for its high 

ozone season RVP requirement would 

cause the Area to be out of compliance 

with the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The slight 

increase in NOX emissions is being 

mitigated by a steady decrease in 

tailpipe emissions,9 which is the result 

of cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing 

the older fleet. See table 2 above. 

In light of the current designation, 

monitoring and emissions trend data 

and the submitted modeling, including 

the fact that NOX emissions inventories 

are projected to continue to significantly 

decrease, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that a change to the Federal 

RVP requirements for the Triangle Area 

would not interfere with the continued 

decline in NOX emissions, nor with 

attainment or maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. 

e. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO 

NAAQS 

Durham and Wake Counties in the 

Triangle Area were previously 

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour 

CO NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694, 

November 6, 1991. Subsequently, 

Durham and Wake Counties attained the 

8-hour CO NAAQS and was 

redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment. On August 2, 1995, EPA 

redesignated Durham and Wake 

Counties to attainment for the 8-hour 

CO NAAQS based on the measured air 

quality data and the 10-year 

maintenance plan submitted. See 60 FR 

39258. The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm 

and the 1-hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm. 

Monitoring data from 2009–2012 shows 

Wake County is well below the 8-hour 

CO NAAQS values as listed in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—CO 8-HOUR MONITORED CONCENTRATION NAAQS 

[ppm] 

County Monitor ID 2009 2010 2011 2012 

8-hr NAAQS 

Wake .................................................................................... 371830014 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 

1-hr NAAQS 

Wake .................................................................................... 371830014 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.9 

Based upon the revised modeling 

associated with the proposed relaxation 

of the RVP standard in the three 

portions of the Triangle Area currently 

subject to the more stringent standard, 

it is estimated that Triangle Area onroad CO emissions will increase 

approximately 6.3 tons per day in 2014 

and 2017. This projected increase 

represents an increase in the total 

inventory of less than 1 percent. 

TABLE 6—2010 CO EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY) FOR MAINTENANCE AREAS

County Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total 

Raleigh-Durham Maintenance Area 

Durham ................................................................................ 0.97 1.54 186.00 19.04 207.55 

Wake .................................................................................... 1.17 4.26 642.97 70.62 719.02 

Total .............................................................................. 2.14 5.80 828.97 89.66 926.57 

In light of the slight increase in CO 

emissions, and the existing air quality 

data showing a wide margin of 

compliance with the CO NAAQS, EPA 

has preliminarily determined that a 

change to the Federal RVP requirement 

for Durham, Granville and Wake 

Counties would not interfere with the 

Raleigh-Durham Area maintaining the 

CO standards. As Table 5 above 

indicates the CO design value is well 

below the standard. 

VI. Mobile Source Inventories and 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

Update 

a. Background 

On June 7, 2007, the State of North 

Carolina, through NC DENR, submitted 

a final request for EPA to: (1) 

Redesignate the Triangle Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard; and (2) approve a North 

Carolina SIP revision containing a 

maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. 

On December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72948), 

EPA approved the redesignation request 

for the Triangle Area. Additionally, EPA 

approved the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan including NOX

MVEBs for the Triangle Area.10 These 

approvals were based on EPA’s 

determination that the State of North 

Carolina had demonstrated that the 

Triangle Area met the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment specified in 

the CAA, including the determination 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64903 

11A safety margin is the difference between the 

attainment level of emissions from all source 

categories (i.e., point, area, and mobile) and the 

projected level of emissions from all source 

categories. The State may choose to allocate some 

of the safety margin to the MVEBs, for 

transportation conformity purposes, so long as the 

total level of emissions from all source categories 

remains equal to or less than the attainment level 

of emissions. (40 CFR 93.124(a)) 

that the entire Triangle Area had 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

At the time of original redesignation 

request, the on-road motor vehicle 

inventory was generating by the 

MOBILE6.2 model, which at the time 

was the current MVEB model. The 

proposed change to the maintenance 

plan discussed above includes a MVEB 

generated by the MOVES model which 

has since replaced MOBILE6.2 model. 

In addition, the model used to calculate 

the original non-road inventory 

(NONROAD2005c) has also since been 

updated by a new non-road inventory 

model (NONROAD2008a). 

As a result of these new models and 

the revised emission associated with a 

relaxed RVP standard, the safety 

margin 11 calculations provided in the 

revised maintenance plan have changes 

from the previous margins included 

with the original maintenance plan. 

Therefore, North Carolina’s revision 

includes a reallocation of the safety 

margin to the NOX MVEB based upon 

the revised calculations. EPA’s 

preliminary analysis of these changes is 

described below. 

b. On-Road Inventory 

As discussed above, the on-road 

motor vehicle emissions in the revised 

maintenance plan are calculated using 

the MOVES model. The MOVES model 

uses the road class vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) and other operating 

conditions as input parameters to 

generate an output file that contains 

estimated emissions. For the projected 

years inventories, the on-road mobile 

sources emissions are calculated by 

running the MOVES mobile model for 

the future year with the projected VMT 

to generate emissions that take into 

consideration expected Federal tailpipe 

standards, fleet turnover and new fuel 

standards. 

Table 7 shows the on-road Chatham, 

Franklin, Johnston, Orange and Person 

Counties emissions based on the current 

RVP of 9.0 psi and the on-road Wake, 

Durham, and Granville Counties 

emissions based on the current RVP of 

7.8 psi. Table 8 shows the on-road 

emissions data for Durham, Granville 

and Wake Counties for 2005, 2008 and 

2011 based on 7.8 psi and the 

comparison of the projected 2014 and 

2017 emissions based on a RVP 

relaxation to 9.0 psi for the three 

counties. 

TABLE 7—MOVES ON-ROAD EMISSIONS FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA * 

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 

VOC Emissions (tons/day) 

MOVES ................................................................................ 87.66 74.10 59.13 48.22 38.97 

NOX Emissions (tons/day) 

MOVES ................................................................................ 175.18 152.05 117.46 91.84 72.88 

* Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on the current RVP of 7.8 psi. 

TABLE 8—MOVES ON-ROAD EMISSIONS COMPARISON * 

2005 2008 2011 2014 ** 2017 **

VOC Emissions (tons/day) 

MOVES ................................................................................ 57.69 49.01 39.21 31.90/32.94 25.64/26.44 

NOX Emissions (tons/day) 

MOVES ................................................................................ 116.11 102.92 80.09 62.56/62.99 49.48/49.78 

* Emissions data for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties only. 

** Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on relaxation of RVP of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. 

c. Non-Road Inventory 

In the original 2007 redesignation 

demonstration and maintenance plan, 

the model used to generate off-road 

emissions was the NONROAD2005c 

model. Since 2007, EPA has updated the 

non-road model to NONROAD2008a. 

NONROAD2008a is the latest USEPA 

approved non-road model. In this 

revision, the NONROAD2008a model is 

used to generate non-road emissions for 

all inventory years—2005, 2008, 2011, 

2014, and 2017. Also, the non-road 

emissions documentation includes the 

general conformity analysis for two new 

nuclear generating units at DukeProgress Energy Company in Wake 

County. 

d. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

In the March 27, 2013, SIP revision, 

North Carolina provided an increase for 

the amount of safety margins allocated 

to the NOX MVEBs to account for 

changes in the projection models. The 

MVEBs in this SIP revision which EPA 

is proposing to approve update the 

MVEBs which were originally approved 

by EPA on December 26, 2007. The 

updated MVEBs are outlined in table 9 

below. 

NC DENR is currently allocating 

portions of the available safety margin 

to the MVEBs to allow for unanticipated 

VMT growth as well as changes to 

future vehicle mix assumptions that 

influence the emission estimations. In 

the March 2013 SIP revision, North 

Carolina is seeking to adjust the safety 

margins. The following tables provide 

the adjusted NOX MVEBs, in kilograms 

per day (kg/d) for the 2008 base 

attainment year inventories, as well as 

the projected NOX emissions inventory 

2017 for each County. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64904 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 9—TRIANGLE AREA (COUNTY LEVEL) NOX MVEB IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY

County 2008 NOX

(kg/d) 

2017 NOX

(kg/d) 

Chatham* ................ Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 3,033 1,690 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 455 422 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 3,488 2,112 

Durham ................... Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 22,438 10,509 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 2,244 2,101 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 24,682 12,610 

Franklin ................... Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 4,537 2,204 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 454 441 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 4,991 2,645 

Granville .................. Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 6,105 2,622 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 916 656 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 7,021 3,278 

Johnston ................. Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 20,320 9,865 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 2,032 1,972 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 22,352 11,838 

Orange .................... Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 13,820 6,137 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 1,382 1,227 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 15,202 7,364 

Person ..................... Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 2,871 1,340 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 431 335 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 3,302 1,674 

Wake ....................... Base Emissions .......................................................................................................... 64,825 32,034 

Safety Margin ............................................................................................................. 6,483 6,407 

NOX Conformity MVEB .............................................................................................. 71,308 38,441 

Total ................. New Safety Margin ..................................................................................................... 14,396 13,563 

* Chatham County emissions for maintenance area only. 

A total of 14,396 kg (15.87 tpd) and 

13,563 kg (14.95 tpd) from the available 

NOX safety margins in 2008 and 2017, 

respectively, were added to the MVEBs 

for the Triangle Area. 

As demonstrated above, the Triangle 

Area is projected to steadily decrease its 

total NOX emissions from the base year 

of 2005 to the maintenance year of 2017. 

This NOX emission decrease 

demonstrates continued attainment/

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for ten years from 2007 (the 

year the Area was effectively designated 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS) as required by the CAA. 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of North Carolina’s March 27, 2013, 

revision to its Maintenance Plan for the 

Triangle 1997 8-hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s 

showing that the Triangle Area can 

continue to maintain the 1997 ozone 

standard without emissions reductions 

associated with the use of 7.8 psi RVP 

gasoline in the three portions of the 

Triangle Area currently subject to the 

7.8 psi RVP standard during the high 

ozone season—June 1 through 

September 15. 

EPA proposes to approve the revised 

and updated modeling submitted by the 

State, which shows that the Triangle 

Area can continue to maintain the 1997 

ozone standard if the applicable RVP 

standard in the three portions of the 

Triangle Area, the North Carolina 

revision is changed. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the revised NOX

MVEBs for 2008 and 2017 including the 

revised and reallocated safety margin 

among the NOX MVEBs for the Triangle 

Area. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that North Carolina’s March 27, 2013, 

SIP revision, including the technical 

demonstration associated with the 

State’s request for the removal of the 

Federal RVP requirements, and the 

updated MVEBs are consistent with the 

applicable provisions of the CAA. 

Should EPA decide to remove the 

subject portions of the Triangle Area 

from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi 

Federal RVP requirements, such action 

will occur in a separate, subsequent 

rulemaking. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal 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 proposed 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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, October 7, 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 64905 

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, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not 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, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 21, 2013. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25782 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 153 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0915] 

RIN 1625–ZA31 

Carriage of Conditionally Permitted 

Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in 

Bulk 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces 

the availability of a proposed policy 

letter concerning the carriage of shale 

gas extraction waste water in bulk via 

barge, and invites public comment. The 

policy letter specifies the conditions 

under which a barge owner may request 

and be granted a Certificate of 

Inspection endorsement or letter 

allowing the barge to transport shale gas 

extraction waste water in bulk. The 

policy letter also defines the 

information the Coast Guard may 

require the barge owner to provide and 

specifies the additional requirements 

the Coast Guard is considering imposing 

on such barges. Upon reviewing 

comments received on this proposed 

policy letter, Coast Guard will issue the 

final policy letter and specify its 

effective date. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to our online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before November 29, 2013 or reach 

the Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2013–0915 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email Dr. Cynthia A. Znati, Office of 

Design and Engineering Standards, 

Hazardous Materials Division, U.S. 

Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1412, 

email HazmatStandards@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to submit 

comments and related material on the 

proposed policy letter concerning the 

carriage of conditionally permitted shale 

gas extraction waste water in bulk. In 

particular, we specifically request 

public comment regarding the 

disclosure of proprietary information to 

the Coast Guard, and regarding the 

applicability of testing requirements for 

radioactive materials to all regions 

where shale gas extraction waste water 

may be transported by barge. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting comments: If you submit a 

comment, please include the docket 

number for this notice (USCG–2013– 

0915) and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online, or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a 

telephone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Notices’’ and insert ‘‘USCG– 

2013–0915’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. 

Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the balloon 

shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit them by mail and 

would like to know that they reached 

the Facility, please enclose a stamped, 

self-addressed postcard or envelope. We 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Viewing the comments and proposed 

new policy letter: To view the comments 

and the policy letter, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read 

comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2013– 

0915’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you do not have access to the 

internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of comments received 

into any of our dockets by the name of 

the individual submitting the comment 

(or signing the comment, if submitted 

on behalf of an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review a 

Privacy Act, system of records notice 

regarding our public dockets in the 

January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal 

Register (73 FR 3316). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS