29230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

notice of intent might be subject to 

section 553 of the APA, the 

Administrator finds that there is good 

cause to forgo the notice and comment 

requirements of section 553, as any 

further delays in the process for 

issuance of temporary scheduling orders 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest in view of the 

manifest urgency to avoid an imminent 

hazard to the public safety. 

Although the DEA believes this notice 

of intent to issue a temporary 

scheduling order is not subject to the 

notice and comment requirements of 

section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes 

that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 

811(h)(4), the Administrator will take 

into consideration any comments 

submitted by the Assistant Secretary 

with regard to the proposed temporary 

scheduling order. 

Further, the DEA believes that this 

temporary scheduling action is not a 

‘‘rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 

and, accordingly, is not subject to the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements 

for the preparation of an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 

603(a) are not applicable where, as here, 

the DEA is not required by section 553 

of the APA or any other law to publish 

a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Additionally, this action is not a 

significant regulatory action as defined 

by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, 

accordingly, this action has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

This action will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) it is determined that this 

action does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, the DEA 

proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as 

follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1308 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 1308.11, add paragraph (h)(24) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(24) N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-Nphenylacetamide, its optical, positional, 

and geometric isomers, salts and salts of 

isomers (Other names: Acetyl 

fentanyl)—(9821) 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 14, 2015. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12331 Filed 5–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0260; FRL–9928–12– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina: 

Non-Interference Demonstration for 

Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure 

Requirement for the Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties in North 

Carolina 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State of North Carolina’s April 16, 

2015, revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

through the North Carolina Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Division of Air Quality (DAQ), in 

support of the State’s request that EPA 

change the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure 

(RVP) requirements for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties. This RVPrelated SIP revision evaluates whether 

changing the Federal RVP requirements 

in these counties would interfere with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). North Carolina’s April 16, 

2015, RVP-related SIP revision also 

updates the State’s maintenance plan 

and the associated motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) related to 

its redesignation request for the North 

Carolina portion of the CharlotteGastonia-Salisbury 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (Charlotte 2008 

Ozone Area) to reflect the requested 

change in the Federal RVP 

requirements. EPA is also proposing to 

approve these updates to the 

maintenance plan and associated 

MVEBs. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that North Carolina’s April 

16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision is 

consistent with the applicable 

provisions of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2015–0260 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0260, 

Air Regulatory Managment 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. 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–2015– 

0260. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29231 

1A separate rulemaking is required for relaxation 

of the current requirement to use gasoline with an 

RVP of 7.8 psi in these counties. This action 

proposes EPA’s evaluation of the approvability of 

North Carolina’s noninterference demonstration 

pursuant to section 110(l). The decision regarding 

removal of Federal RVP requirements pursuant to 

section 211(h) in the Area includes other 

considerations evaluated at the discretion of the 

Administrator. As such, the determination 

regarding whether to remove the Area from those 

areas subject to the section 211(h) requirements is 

made through a separate rulemaking action. 

2See footnote 4 for a geographic description of 

the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. 

3The use of the term ‘‘Charlotte Area’’ in the 

remainder of this document refers to the EPAdesignated area for the relevant NAAQS that 

includes Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. 

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 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. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, in the Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–8726 or via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being proposed? 

II. What is the background of the Charlotte 

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. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being proposed? 

This rulemaking proposes to approve 

North Carolina’s April 16, 2015, SIP 

revision in support of the State’s request 

that EPA relax the Federal RVP 

requirement from 7.8 pounds per square 

inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold 

between June 1 and September 15 of 

each year (i.e., during high ozone 

season) in Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve the State’s technical 

demonstration that changing the federal 

RVP requirements in Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties from 7.8 psi to 

9.0 psi will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) or with any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA.1 In a separate 

SIP revision which is currently under 

EPA review, DAQ is requesting that EPA 

redesignate the North Carolina portion 

of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area 

to attainment.2 Final action to approve 

North Carolina’s requested change to the 

Federal RVP requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties is contingent, in 

part, on EPA’s final action to approve 

North Carolina’s redesignation request 

for the North Carolina portion of the 

Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. With 

its redesignation request, the State 

included a maintenance demonstration 

plan that estimates emissions through 

2026 using a 7.8 psi RVP requirement 

rather than the 9.0 psi RVP requirement. 

However, through the April 16, 2015 

RVP-related SIP revision (the subject of 

this proposed rulemaking), DAQ 

updated the mobile emissions for that 

maintenance plan (including the 

MVEBs) to reflect the State’s request for 

EPA to change the Federal RVP 

requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties to 9.0 psi. The 

updates are summarized on page 24 of 

the State’s submittal titled ‘‘Charlotte 

2008 Ozone Redesignation and 

Maintenance SIP_with_RVP_Demo_

Final_04–16–15’’, and may be accessed 

at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0260. This 

proposed action would also update that 

maintenance plan to reflect the change 

for mobile emissions and the associated 

MVEBs due to the proposed change in 

the Federal RVP requirements for 

Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. 

As mentioned above, North Carolina 

is requesting the removal of the Federal 

7.8 psi RVP requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties and, as part of 

that request, has evaluated whether 

removal of this requirement would 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. To make 

this demonstration, North Carolina 

completed a technical analysis to 

estimate the change in emissions that 

would result from a switch to 9.0 psi 

RVP fuel. EPA has reviewed this 

technical analysis and is proposing to 

find that North Carolina’s technical 

demonstration supports the conclusion 

that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 

9.0 psi in Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of any 

NAAQS or with any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA in the Charlotte 

Area.3 In addition to proposing to 

approve DAQ’s noninterference 

demonstration, EPA is also proposing to 

approve the update to the maintenance 

plan and MVEBs associated with the 

State’s request to redesignate the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8- 

hour Ozone Area to reflect the requested 

change in the Federal RVP requirements 

for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. 

This preamble is hereinafter 

organized into five parts. Section II 

provides the background of the 

Charlotte 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 change to 

the Federal RVP standard in Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties. 

II. What is the background of the 

Charlotte area? 

The Charlotte Area was originally 

designated as a 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 

1978 (43 FR 8962) and was 

geographically defined as Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina. On November 

6, 1991, by operation of law under 

section 181(a) of the CAA, EPA 

classified the Charlotte Area as a 

moderate nonattainment area for ozone 

and added Gaston County to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29232 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4The nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, 

Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion 

of Iredell County (Davidson and Coddle Creek 

Townships), North Carolina and a portion of York 

County, South Carolina. The 7.8 psi RVP standard 

continued to apply to Gaston and Mecklenburg 

counties whereas the remaining counties in the 

nonattainment area are subject to the 9.0 psi RVP 

standard. 

5The nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard includes the same counties in the 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, but it has a smaller geographical 

boundary than the 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area includes the entire county of 

Mecklenburg and portions of the following 

counties: Cabarrus (Central Cabarrus, Concord, 

Georgeville, Harrisburg, Kannapolis, Midland, 

Mount Pleasant, Odell, Poplar Tent, New Gilead 

and Rimertown Townships), Gaston (Dallas, 

Crowders Mountain, Gastonia, Riverbend and South 

Point Townships), Iredell (Coddle and Davidson 

Townships), Lincoln (Catawba Springs, Lincolnton 

and Ironton Townships), Rowan (Atwell, China 

Grove, Franklin, Gold Hill, Litaker, Locke, 

Providence, Salisbury, Steele and Unity Townships) 

and Union (Goose Creek, Marshville, Monroe, 

Sandy Ridge and Vance Townships) for North 

Carolina, and a portion of York County (excluding 

the Indian Country associated with the Catawba 

Indian Nation) for South Carolina. Though the 

number of counties remained the same for the 2008 

ozone nonattainment area, Gaston and Mecklenburg 

adhered the 7.8 psi RVP requirement while 

remaining counties were subjected to the RVP of 9.0 

psi. 

nonattainment area. See 56 FR 56693. 

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 

section III, below, a 7.8 psi Federal RVP 

requirement first applied to Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties during the high 

ozone season given its status as a 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

DAQ requested a redesignation of the 

Charlotte Area to attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS in 1993. The Area 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 

was redesignated to attainment for the 

1-hour ozone on July 5, 1995, based on 

1990–1993 ambient air quality 

monitoring data. See 60 FR 34859. 

North Carolina’s 1-hour ozone 

redesignation request did not include a 

request to relax the 7.8 psi Federal RVP 

standard. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

and classified areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on 

July 18, 1997, as unclassifiable/

attainment or nonattainment for the new 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. 

The Charlotte Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with a design value of 

0.100 parts per million (ppm).4

Subsequently, the Charlotte Area 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

with a design value of 0.082 ppm using 

three years of quality assured data for 

the years of 2008–2010. The Charlotte 

Area was redesignated to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final 

rulemaking on December 2, 2013. See 78 

FR 72036. North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone redesignation request did not 

include a request for the removal of the 

7.8 psi Federal RVP standard for the 

Charlotte Area, and thus modeled 7.8 

psi for Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties to support the maintenance 

demonstration. 

On May 21, 2012, EPA designated and 

classified areas for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on 

March 27, 2008, as unclassifiable/

attainment or nonattainment for the new 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. 

The Charlotte Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with a design value of 

0.079 ppm.5 On April 16, 2015, DAQ 

submitted a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the North Carolina 

portion of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour 

Ozone Area for EPA’s approval. In that 

submittal, the State included a 

maintenance demonstration that 

estimates emissions using a 7.8 psi RVP 

requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone redesignation request and 

maintenance plan. EPA is taking action 

on the aforementioned redesignation 

request and maintenance plan in a 

separate rulemaking. However, also on 

April 16, 2015, to support its request for 

EPA to change the Federal RVP 

requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties, DAQ submitted 

a SIP revision that contains a 

noninterference demonstration that 

included updated modeling assuming 

9.0 psi for RVP for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties and updates the 

maintenance plan submission and 

associated MVEBs for the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8- 

hour Ozone Area. 

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 (VOCs), 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 summer 

ozone control 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 

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 EPA 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). A current listing of the 

RVP requirements for states can be 

found at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) as well as 

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 is best accomplished in 

conjunction with the redesignation 

process. In order for an ozone 

nonattainment area to be redesignated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29233 

6See footnote 4 for a geographic description of 

the Charlotte NC 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. 

7The maintenance plan has to ensure 

maintenance of the 0.075 ppm 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS which is more stringent than the 0.080 

ppm 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

8The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes 

health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, 

NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2. RVP requirements do not 

have an impact on actual or modeled lead 

emissions. 

9PM is composed of PM2.5 and PM10. 

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 change the 

volatility standard unless the state 

requests a change 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, North Carolina did 

not request a change of the applicable 

7.8 psi Federal RVP standard when the 

Charlotte Area was redesignated to 

attainment for the either the 1-hour or 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

State, in conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the North Carolina portion 

of the Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area 

to attainment,6 is now requesting a 

change of the Federal RVP requirement 

from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. EPA’s 

consideration of this requested change 

for the Federal RVP requirements for 

Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties is 

contingent, in part, upon EPA approving 

North Carolina’s redesignation request 

and maintenance plan for the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 8- 

hour Ozone Area. To make the 

requested change in the Federal RVP 

requirements for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties, EPA would also 

have to approve the updates to North 

Carolina’s maintenance plan and 

MVEBs included with the State’s April 

16, 2015, RVP-related SIP revision.7

IV. What are the section 110(l) 

requirements? 

To support North Carolina’s request to 

relax the Federal RVP requirement for 

Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, the 

State must demonstrate that the 

requested change will satisfy section 

110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) 

requires that a revision to the SIP not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. EPA’s criterion 

for determining the approvability of 

North Carolina’s April 16, 2015, RVPrelated SIP revision is whether the 

noninterference demonstration 

associated with the relaxation request 

satisfies section 110(l). 

EPA evaluates each section 110(l) 

noninterference demonstration on a 

case-by-case basis considering 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 degree of analysis 

focused on any particular NAAQS in a 

noninterference demonstration varies 

depending on the nature of the 

emissions associated with the proposed 

SIP revision. EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s April 16, 2015, SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110(l) is provided 

below. 

As previously mentioned, EPA is 

proposing three actions in relation to 

the State’s April 16, 2015, 

noninterference demonstration. First, 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s update to the maintenance 

plan associated with the State’s 

redesignation request for the North 

Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 

8-hour Ozone Area to reflect modeling 

of 9.0 psi for RVP for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties. Second, EPA is 

proposing to approve the revised 

MVEBs that result from the updated 

mobile modeling to reflect the change in 

RVP for Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties. Third, EPA is proposing to 

approve the State’s technical 

demonstration that the switch to the 

sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi 

in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties 

during the high ozone season will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS and to 

amend the SIP to include this 

demonstration. Consistent with CAA 

section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility 

regulations, a separate rulemaking is 

required to change the current Federal 

requirement to use gasoline with a 7.8 

psi RVP in Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s submittal? 

a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions 

Regarding North Carolina’s 

Noninterference Analyses 

On April 16, 2015, DAQ submitted a 

noninterference demonstration to 

support the State’s request to modify the 

RVP summertime gasoline requirement 

from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties. This 

demonstration includes an evaluation of 

the impact that the removal of the 7.8 

psi RVP requirement for these counties 

would have on the Area’s ability to 

attain or maintain the 1997 and 2008 

ozone standards or other NAAQS in the 

Charlotte Area.8 North Carolina’s 

noninterference analysis evaluated the 

impact of the change in RVP on the 

Area’s ability to attain or maintain the 

ozone, particulate matter (PM),9

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) 

NAAQS. 

DAQ’s noninterference analysis 

utilized EPA’s 2014 Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission 

modeling system to estimate emissions 

for mobile sources. These mobile source 

emissions are used as part of the 

evaluation of the potential impacts to 

the NAAQS that might result 

exclusively from changing the high 

ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 

psi to 9.0 psi. As summarized in Tables 

1 and 2, below, the MOVES model 

predicted minor increases in on-road 

mobile source NOX and VOC emissions 

in the North Carolina portion of the 

Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area due 

to relaxation of the RVP requirement. 

Daily on-road mobile NOX emissions are 

projected to increase by 0.11 ton in 2015 

down to an increase of 0.01 ton in 2026 

during the ozone season. Daily on-road 

mobile VOC emissions are projected to 

increase by 0.18 ton in 2015 down to an 

increase of 0.04 ton in 2026 during the 

ozone season. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29234 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE NOX EMISSIONS (AVERAGE TONS/DAY) FOR OZONE SEASON

County 

7.8 psi RVP 

2014 2015 2018 2022 2026 

Cabarrus 1 ............................................................................ 6.60 5.93 3.94 2.79 1.86 

Gaston 1 2 ............................................................................. 8.11 7.23 4.60 3.04 1.97 

Iredell 1 ................................................................................. 3.36 3.05 2.05 1.41 0.93 

Lincoln 1 ................................................................................ 3.00 2.75 1.84 1.23 0.76 

Mecklenburg 2 ...................................................................... 26.99 24.12 14.35 9.63 6.85 

Rowan 1 ................................................................................ 6.42 5.75 3.73 2.56 1.59 

Union 1 .................................................................................. 5.67 5.14 3.41 2.28 1.51 

Total .............................................................................. 60.15 53.97 33.92 22.94 15.47 

9.0 psi RVP 

Cabarrus 1 ............................................................................ ........................ 5.93 3.94 2.79 1.86 

Gaston 1 2 ............................................................................. ........................ 7.26 4.62 3.04 1.98 

Iredell 1 ................................................................................. ........................ 3.05 2.05 1.41 0.93 

Lincoln 1 ................................................................................ ........................ 2.75 1.84 1.23 0.76 

Mecklenburg 2 ...................................................................... ........................ 24.20 14.39 9.65 6.85 

Rowan 1 ................................................................................ ........................ 5.75 3.73 2.56 1.59 

Union 1 .................................................................................. ........................ 5.14 3.41 2.28 1.51 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ 54.08 33.98 22.96 15.48 

Emissions Increase .............................................................. ........................ 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.01 

1Emissions are reported only for the nonattainment portion of the county included in the Charlotte, NC 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. 

2Only Gaston and Mecklenburg counties use 7.8 psi RVP fuel. The remaining counties use 9.0 psi RVP fuel. 

TABLE 2—ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE VOC EMISSIONS (AVERAGE TONS/DAY) FOR OZONE SEASON

County 

7.8 psi RVP 

2014 2015 2018 2022 2026 

Cabarrus 1 ............................................................................ 4.15 3.89 3.01 2.53 2.04 

Gaston 1 2 ............................................................................. 4.61 4.24 3.05 2.31 1.72 

Iredell 1 ................................................................................. 1.95 1.82 1.40 1.10 0.82 

Lincoln 1 ................................................................................ 1.91 1.81 1.37 1.07 0.79 

Mecklenburg 2 ...................................................................... 14.40 13.28 10.00 8.18 6.64 

Rowan 1 ................................................................................ 3.76 3.48 2.57 1.93 1.41 

Union 1 .................................................................................. 3.54 3.30 2.54 2.04 1.56 

Total .............................................................................. 34.32 31.82 23.94 19.16 14.98 

9.0 psi RVP 

Cabarrus 1 ............................................................................ ........................ 3.89 3.01 2.53 2.04 

Gaston 1 2 ............................................................................. ........................ 4.29 3.08 2.32 1.73 

Iredell 1 ................................................................................. ........................ 1.82 1.40 1.10 0.82 

Lincoln 1 ................................................................................ ........................ 1.81 1.37 1.07 0.79 

Mecklenburg 2 ...................................................................... ........................ 13.41 10.09 8.22 6.67 

Rowan 1 ................................................................................ ........................ 3.48 2.57 1.93 1.41 

Union 1 .................................................................................. ........................ 3.30 2.54 2.04 1.56 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ 32.00 24.06 19.21 15.02 

Emissions Increase .............................................................. ........................ 0.18 0.12 0.05 0.04 

1Emissions are reported only for the nonattainment portion of the county included in the Charlotte, NC 2008 8-hour Ozone Area. 

2Only Gaston and Mecklenburg counties use 7.8 psi RVP fuel. The remaining counties use 9.0 psi RVP fuel. 

Table 3, below, shows the total 

estimated anthropogenic emissions of 

NOX and VOC from area, point, on-road, 

and nonroad source categories for the 

North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte 

2008 8-hour Ozone Area. Emissions 

reported for 2014 assume the use of 7.8 

psi RVP fuel for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties whereas 

emissions from 2015 through 2026 

assume the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel. NOX

and VOC emissions are projected to 

continue to decrease in the Charlotte 8- 

hour Ozone Area using 9.0 psi RVP fuel 

in the entire Area for years 2015 through 

2026. DAQ’s analysis also estimates that 

RVP relaxation could increase 

anthropogenic VOC emissions by 0.42 

tpd in 2015 and 0.32 tpd in 2026 and 

could increase anthropogenic NOX

emissions by 0.11 tpd in 2015 and 0.01 

tpd in 2026. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29235 

10The safety margin is the difference between the 

attainment level of emissions in the base year from 

all source categories (point, area, on-road and 

nonroad) and the projected level of emissions in 

future years from all source categories. 

11The Charlotte Area is located within a NOXlimited region. A NOX-limited region is one in 

which the concentration of ozone is limited by the 

amount of NOX emissions. NOX and VOC are 

precursors to the formation of ozone in the 

atmosphere. In a NOX-limited area, high prevailing 

concentrations of VOC from naturally-occurring 

sources are present in the atmosphere to contribute 

to ozone formation. Consequently, reduction of 

manmade, or anthropogenic, sources of VOC 

emissions generally do not result in reduced ozone 

formation. Instead, reductions of NOX emissions 

provide a more effective ozone reduction strategy 

because reduced emissions of manmade NOX

emissions limit the amount of NOX available in the 

atmosphere for ozone formation. See, e.g., The State 

of the Southern Oxidants Study (SOS) Policy 

Relevant Findings in Ozone and PM2.5 Pollution 

Research 1995–2003 (June 30, 2004), http://

www.ncsu.edu/sos/pubs/sos3/State_of_SOS_3.pdf. 

12The Enochville monitor shut down after the 

2014 monitoring season. There was not enough data 

at the location to calculate a 3-year average design 

value for 2012–2014. 

TABLE 3—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC

EMISSIONS

Year NOX

(tons/day) 

VOC 

(tons/day) 

2014 .................. 130.18 113.12 

2015 .................. 124.18 111.09 

2018 .................. 94.33 104.41 

2022 .................. 86.67 101.74 

2026 .................. 67.54 100.46 

Difference from 

2014 to 2026 ¥62.64 ¥12.66 

b. Noninterference Analysis for the 

Ozone NAAQS 

As discussed above, the Charlotte 

Area is currently designated as 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and in a separate action, EPA 

is considering the State’s redesignation 

request for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Although the Charlotte Area 

was previously designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, the Charlotte Area was 

redesignated to attainment for that 

NAAQS on December 2, 2014. See 78 

FR 72036. 

Table 4, below, shows the safety 

margins 10 from a 2014 base year with 

7.8 psi RVP fuel to the years 2015, 2018, 

2022, and 2026 with 9.0 psi RVP fuel for 

the entire Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone 

Area. The safety margins identified in 

Table 4 indicate that the switch to 9.0 

psi RVP fuel in Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties will not interfere with the 

Area’s ability to attain or maintain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.11

TABLE 4—SAFETY MARGIN

Year NOX

(tons/day) 

VOC 

(tons/day) 

2014 .................. N/A N/A 

2015 .................. ¥6.00 ¥2.03 

2018 .................. ¥35.85 ¥8.71 

TABLE 4—SAFETY MARGIN— 

Continued 

Year NOX

(tons/day) 

VOC 

(tons/day) 

2022 .................. ¥43.51 ¥11.38 

2026 .................. ¥62.64 ¥12.66 

Because the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is more stringent than the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, North Carolina’s 

April 16, 2015, noninterference 

demonstration for the ozone NAAQS is 

focused on the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. The 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is met when the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

concentration, averaged over 3 years is 

0.075 ppm or less. As shown in Table 

5, all of the ozone monitors in the 

Charlotte 2008 8-hour Ozone Area are 

currently below the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

TABLE 5—CHARLOTTE AREA OZONE DESIGN VALUES (PPM) 

Monitor 2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 2012–2014 

Crouse ...................................................... 0.076 0.072 0.071 0.075 0.072 0.068 

Garinger ................................................... 0.082 0.078 0.079 0.083 0.078 0.070 

Arrowood .................................................. 0.076 0.073 0.076 0.077 0.072 0.066 

County Line .............................................. 0.086 0.082 0.078 0.083 0.078 0.073 

Rockwell ................................................... 0.083 0.077 0.075 0.078 0.073 0.068 

Enochville ................................................. 0.083 0.077 0.076 0.077 0.072 (12) 

Monroe ..................................................... 0.076 0.072 0.070 0.073 0.070 0.068 

York .......................................................... 0.072 0.067 0.064 0.065 0.063 0.060 

Table 5 also shows that there is an 

overall downward trend in ozone 

concentrations in the Charlotte 2008 8- 

hour Ozone Area. This decline can be 

attributed to Federal and State programs 

that have led to significant emissions 

reductions in ozone precursors. Given 

this downward trend, the current ozone 

concentrations in the Charlotte 2008 8- 

hour Ozone Area, and the results of 

North Carolina’s emissions analysis, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston 

and Mecklenburg Counties would not 

interfere with the Area’s ability to attain 

or maintain the 1997 or 2008 ozone 

NAAQS in the Charlotte Area. 

c. Noninterference Analysis for the PM 

NAAQS 

Over the course of several years, EPA 

has reviewed and revised the PM2.5

NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 

1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3), based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 

mg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 

98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 

18, 1997). On September 21, 2006, EPA 

retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

of 15.0 mg/m3 but revised the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based again 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On 

December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3

but revised the annual primary PM2.5

NAAQS to 12.0 mg/m3, based again on 

a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5

concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 

15, 2013). 

EPA promulgated designations for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on January 

5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and April 14, 2005 

(70 FR 19844). The Charlotte Area was 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standards. As 

mentioned above, EPA revised the 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in December 

2012. EPA completed designations for 

the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for most 

areas on December 14, 2015, and 

designated counties in the Charlotte 

Area as unclassifiable/attainment. See 

80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29236 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

13The main precursors for PM2.5 are NOX, SO2, 

VOC and ammonia. There have been a number of 

studies in the Southeast which have indicated that 

SO2 is the primary driver of PM2.5 formation in the 

Southeast. See, e.g., Journal of Environmental 

Engineering- Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine 

particulate matter, and regional haze in the 

Southeastern United States (June 24, 2009), http:// 

www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-ofenvironmental-management. 

14EPA has also preliminarily determined that a 

change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel in the Charlotte Area 

would not interfere with maintenance of the 

Annual PM10 NAAQS of 150 mg/m3 given the 

results of North Carolina’s emissions analysis and 

the fact that the Area is currently attaining the PM10

standard. Because PM2.5 is a component of PM10, 

this preliminary determination is further supported 

by the downward trend in PM2.5 identified above. 

15Copy of the Consent Decree- http://

www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/

201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf. 

16 ‘‘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 the EPA 

on December 18, 2009, Figure 4–2, p. 4–4). 

In 2013, the Charlotte Area PM2.5

design values were 9.8 mg/m3 for the 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 22 mg/m3 for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. North 

Carolina’s MOVES2014 modeling 

predicted slight reductions of direct 

PM2.5 emissions (0.23 percent reduction 

in 2015 and a 0.61 percent reduction in 

2026) after changing the model inputs to 

reflect the proposed use of 9.0 psi RVP 

fuel in Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties. As discussed above, the 

MOVES2014 modeling also predicted 

small increases in NOX and VOC 

emissions due to the proposed RVP 

relaxation. However, EPA believes that 

any resulting increase in ambient PM2.5

concentrations resulting from these 

changes would not cause interference 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS because the NOX

and VOC mobile emission increases 

would be small in relation to the current 

total emissions and because ambient 

PM2.5 concentrations in the southeastern 

U.S. tend to be impacted more 

significantly by direct PM2.5 and SO2

emissions than by NOX and 

anthropogenic VOC emissions.13 As 

discussed below, the MOVES2014 

model did not predict any impact on 

SO2 emissions due to RVP relaxation in 

Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. 

Given the current PM2.5 concentrations 

in the Charlotte Area and the results of 

North Carolina’s emissions analysis, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston 

and Mecklenburg Counties would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Charlotte 

Area.14

d. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS 

On February 17, 2012, EPA 

designated all counties in North 

Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. 

Based on the technical analysis in North 

Carolina’s April 16, 2015, RVP-related 

SIP revision, the projected increase in 

total anthropogenic NOX emissions 

associated with the change to 9.0 psi 

RVP fuel for Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties is approximately 0.11 tpd in 

2015 and 0.01 tpd in 2026. Given the 

current unclassifiable/attainment 

designation and the results of North 

Carolina’s emissions analysis, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that a change 

to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in the Charlotte Area. 

e. Noninterference Analysis for the CO 

NAAQS 

In November 6, 1991, Mecklenburg 

County was classified as ‘‘not 

classified’’ for the 1971 8-hour CO 

NAAQS of 9 ppm. See 56 FR 56694. 

Mecklenburg County was redesignated 

to attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS 

on August 2, 1995. See 60 FR 39258. On 

August 31, 2011, EPA retained the 8- 

hour standard and 1-hour standard. See 

76 FR 54294. Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties remain in attainment for the 

1971 and 2011 1-hour and 8-hour CO 

NAAQS. 

North Carolina’s MOVES2014 

modeling projected an increase in total 

on-road mobile source CO emissions of 

approximately 2.78 tpd in 2015 and 1.44 

tpd in 2026 (0.71 percent and 0.60 

percent of estimated total on-road 

mobile source emissions in those years, 

respectively) after changing the model 

inputs to reflect the proposed use of 9.0 

psi RVP fuel in Gaston and Mecklenburg 

Counties. The 2012 and 2013 ambient 

monitoring data showed maximum 8- 

hour concentration of 1.2 ppm for the 8- 

hour CO. Additionally, 2012 and 2013 

ambient monitoring data showed 

maximum 1-hour CO concentrations of 

2.3 and 1.7 ppm, respectively, well 

below the 35 ppm 1-hour CO NAAQS. 

Given the current unclassifiable/

attainment designation, ambient 

monitoring data, and the results of 

North Carolina’s emissions analysis, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston 

and Mecklenburg Counties would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 1971 

1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS in the 

Charlotte Area. 

f. Noninterference Analysis for the SO2

NAAQS 

On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS to 75 parts per billion 

(ppb) which became effective on August 

23, 2010. See 75 FR 35520. On August 

5, 2013, EPA designated nonattainment 

only in areas with violating 2009–2011 

monitoring data. EPA did not designate 

any county in North Carolina for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as part of the 

initial designation. See 78 FR 47191. On 

March 2, 2015, a Consent Decree was 

issued by the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

California stipulating the time and 

method for designating the remaining 

areas in the Country.15

North Carolina’s MOVES2014 

modeling did not predict any change in 

SO2 emissions due to RVP relaxation. 

The Charlotte Area had a design value 

of 10 ppb, about 13 percent of the SO2

NAAQS. Additionally, 3 percent of total 

SO2 is derived from on-road, nonroad 

and area sources combined and the 

remaining 97 percent from point 

sources.16 For these reasons, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that a change 

to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2012 

SO2 NAAQS in the Charlotte Area. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of North Carolina’s noninterference 

demonstration, submitted on April 16, 

2015, in support of the State’s request 

that EPA change the Federal RVP 

requirements for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties from 7.8 psi to 

9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to find that this change in the RVP 

requirements for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of any 

NAAQS or with any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. North 

Carolina’s April 16, 2015, SIP revision 

also updates its maintenance plan and 

the associated MVEBs related to the 

State’s redesignation request for the 

North Carolina portion of the 2008 

Charlotte 8-hour Ozone Area to reflect 

emissions changes for the requested 

change to the Federal RVP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve those changes to update the 

maintenance plan and the MVEBs. As 

previously mentioned, final action on 

North Carolina’s noninterference 

demonstration is contingent upon EPA 

approving the State’s redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for the 

North Carolina portion of Charlotte 2008 

8-hour Ozone Area. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that North Carolina’s April 16, 2015, 

RVP-related SIP revision is consistent 

with the applicable provisions of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 98 / Thursday, May 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29237 

CAA. EPA is not proposing action today 

to remove the Federal 7.8 psi RVP 

requirement for Gaston and 

Mecklenburg Counties. Any such 

proposal would occur in a separate and 

subsequent rulemaking. 

VII. 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 proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not propose to impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 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 

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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 12, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12348 Filed 5–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0870; FRL–9928–14– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation 

of the Knoxville 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 14, 2014, the 

State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution 

Control Division, submitted a request 

for the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to redesignate the 

Knoxville, Tennessee 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Knoxville Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to 

attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan and a 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Area. The Knoxville Area includes a 

portion of Anderson County as well as 

Blount and Knox Counties in their 

entireties. EPA is proposing to approve 

the base year emissions inventory for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

Knoxville Area; to determine that the 

Knoxville Area is attaining the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS; to approve the 

State’s plan for maintaining attainment 

of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the 

Area, including the motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) for the years 2011 

and 2026 for the Area, into the SIP; and 

to redesignate the Area to attainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

also notifying the public of the status of 

EPA’s adequacy determination for the 

Knoxville Area MVEBs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 22, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0870, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0870,’’ 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. 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–2014– 

0870. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS