35444 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves a safety zone lasting nine hours 

daily that would prohibit persons and 

vessels from entering an area of 

approximately one square mile. 

Normally such actions are categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 

1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 

001–01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record 

of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit http://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T07–0232 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T07–0232 Safety Zone; Blue Angels 

Air Show; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the St. Johns 

River, from surface to bottom, 

encompassed by a line connecting the 

following points beginning at 30°13′41′′ 

N; 081°39′45′′ W, thence due east to, 

30°13′41′′ N; 081°38′35′′ W, thence south 

to 30°14′27′′ N; 081°38′35′′ W, thence 

west to 30°14′27′′ N; 081°39′45′′ W, and 

thence along the shore line back to the 

beginning point. These coordinates are 

based on North American Datum 1983. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Jacksonville (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Jacksonville or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Jacksonville by telephone at (904) 714– 

7557, or a designated representative via 

VHF–FM radio on channel 16, to 

request authorization. If authorization is 

granted, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

COTP Jacksonville or a designated 

representative 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area through 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF– 

FM channel 16 or by on-scene 

designated representatives. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced daily from 8 a.m. until 

5:00 p.m. on October 26, 2018 through 

October 28, 2018. 

Dated: July 19, 2018 

T.C. Wiemers, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Jacksonville. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15975 Filed 7–25–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0020; FRL–9981– 

24—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; NC: Inspection and 

Maintenance Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of North 

Carolina on November 17, 2017, through 

the North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division 

of Air Quality (DAQ), for the purpose of 

removing 26 counties from North 

Carolina’s expanded inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program, which was 

previously approved into the SIP for use 

as a component of the State’s Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOX) Budget and Allowance 

Trading Program. EPA has evaluated 

whether this SIP revision would 

interfere with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), including 

EPA regulations related to statewide 

NOX emissions budgets. EPA is 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35445 

1Under provisions of the State legislation, 

Session Law 2017–10, Senate Bill 131, the removal 

of I/M requirements from the 26 counties is not 

effective until the later of the following dates: 

October 1, 2017 or the first day of a month that is 

60 days after the Secretary of the DEQ certifies that 

EPA has approved the instant SIP revision. The 26 

counties are: Brunswick, Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, 

Catawba, Chatham, Cleveland, Craven, Edgecombe, 

Granville, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Lenoir, 

Moore, Nash, Orange, Pitt, Robeson, Rutherford, 

Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Wayne, Wilkes, and Wilson. 

2See Section II, below, for a more detailed 

discussion of the NOX SIP Call and North Carolina’s 

EPA-approved response, which includes as an 

element, credits gained from emissions reductions 

resulting from implementation of its SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program. 

3See Letter from Michael A. Abraczinskas, 

Director of the Division of Air Quality for the North 

Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 

dated July 11, 2018. This letter is part of the Docket 

for this action. 

4The nine counties are Mecklenburg, Wake, 

Cabarrus, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, 

Continued 

proposing to determine that North 

Carolina’s November 17, 2017, SIP 

revision is consistent with the 

applicable provisions of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2018–0020 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Sheckler, 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. The telephone 

number is (404) 562–9222. Ms. Sheckler 

can also be reached via electronic mail 

at sheckler.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

preamble is organized into three parts. 

Section I provides an overview of what 

is being proposed in this SIP revision. 

Section II provides the background of 

North Carolina’s SIP-approved I/M 

program and its relationship to the 

State’s NOX Budget and Allowance 

Trading Program. Section III provides 

EPA’s analysis of the submittal, 

including information submitted by 

North Carolina to support a noninterference demonstration. Section IV 

provides EPA’s proposed action. 

I. What is being proposed? 

In response to a North Carolina 

legislative act signed by the Governor on 

May 4, 2017, that removed the State’s 

I/M requirements for 26 counties,1 the 

DAQ submitted a SIP revision on 

November 17, 2017, seeking to remove 

these counties from the expanded I/M 

program which was approved into the 

SIP in 2002. The expanded I/M program 

was approved into the SIP in 2002, for 

the purpose of using NOX emissions 

reductions generated by this expanded 

program as a component of the State’s 

NOX Budget and Allowance Trading 

Program. See 67 FR 66056 (October 30, 

2002). The SIP-approved I/M rules, 

which initially required tail-pipe 

emissions testing (later replaced by onboard diagnostic standards) are 

contained within 15A North Carolina 

Administrative Code (NCAC) 

Subchapter 2D, Section .1000 ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Control Standards.’’ 

The 2002 SIP-approved amendment of 

those rules expanded the applicability 

of the I/M program in North Carolina’s 

SIP from nine counties to 48 counties. 

See 67 FR 66056. The 26 counties which 

are the subject of this SIP revision are 

part of this expanded list. 

As noted above, the purpose of the 

2002 I/M SIP revision was to allow 

North Carolina to gain credits from the 

I/M emissions reductions from the 26 

counties, and other counties on the 

expanded list, as part of its NOX Budget 

and Allowance Trading Program. See 67 

FR 66056. North Carolina’s NOX Budget 

and Allowance Trading Program was 

submitted to EPA for approval in 

response to EPA’s regulation entitled 

‘‘Finding of Significant Contribution 

and Rulemaking for Certain States in the 

Ozone Transport Assessment Group 

Region for Purposes of Reducing 

Regional Transport of Ozone,’’ 

otherwise known as the NOX SIP Call. 

The I/M emissions reductions from 

these 26 counties are not relied upon for 

any other purpose in the North Carolina 

SIP.2

For the reasons discussed more fully 

in Section III, below, EPA is proposing 

to find that removal of the 26 counties 

from North Carolina’s SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program (and 

consequently, the removal of reliance on 

credits gained from I/M emissions 

reductions from the 26 counties in the 

State’s NOX Budget and Allowance 

Trading Program) will not interfere with 

North Carolina’s obligations under the 

NOX SIP Call. This proposed finding is 

based on a number of federal rules and 

SIP-approved State regulations 

promulgated and implemented 

subsequent to the 2002 approval of 

North Carolina’s NOX SIP Call 

submission, which have created 

significant NOX emissions reductions in 

North Carolina such that the credits 

gained by the 26 counties’ participation 

in the expanded I/M program are no 

longer needed in order for North 

Carolina to meets its NOX SIP Call 

Statewide NOX emissions budget. North 

Carolina has provided an analysis 

which supports this proposed finding 

and which discusses some of these 

federal rules and SIP-approved State 

regulations.3 See Section III, below. 

In addition, North Carolina’s SIP 

revision evaluates the impact that the 

removal of the I/M program for these 26 

counties would have on the State’s 

ability to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. The SIP revision contains a 

technical demonstration with revised 

emissions calculations showing that 

removing the 26 counties from the 

expanded I/M program will not interfere 

with North Carolina’s attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS or with any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. As discussed more fully in 

Section III, below, EPA is proposing to 

find that North Carolina’s revised 

emissions calculations demonstrate that 

removing the 26 counties’ participation 

in the expanded I/M program will not 

interfere with State’s ability to attain or 

maintain any NAAQS. 

II. What is the background of North 

Carolina’s I/M program and its 

relationship to the NOX SIP Call and 

the State’s NOX budget and allowance 

trading program? 

Under sections 182(b)(4), (c) and (d) 

of the CAA, I/M programs are required 

for areas that are designated as moderate 

or above nonattainment for ozone. As a 

result, North Carolina has previously 

submitted, and EPA has previously 

approved into the SIP (in 1995), a CAArequired I/M program for nine 

counties.4 See 60 FR 28720 (June 2, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
35446 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Union, and Orange. 60 FR 28720 (June 2, 1995). 

However, while Orange County was included in 

this 1995 submittal and EPA approval, it was not 

designated as nonattainment for either the ozone or 

carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. 

5North Carolina Session Law 1999–328, Section 

3.1(d) and Section 3.8. 

6All 26 of the counties subject to this proposed 

rulemaking were designated ‘‘unclassifiable/ 

attainment’’ for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 

77 FR 30088. Five (or portions thereof) of the 26 

counties (i.e., Chatham, Edgecombe, Haywood 

(partial), Nash, and Orange) were previously 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard but have since been redesignated to 

attainment. The remaining 21 counties were 

originally designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have continued 

to attain the standard. 

7North Carolina’s Statewide NOX emissions 

budget is 165,022 tons per ozone season. See 40 

CFR 51.121(g)(2)(ii). 

8While these reduction credits were primarily 

used to allow for new growth during initial program 

implementation, a small portion (approximately 

1,000 tons/ozone season) were also initially used to 

help meet the Statewide NOX emissions budget of 

165,022 tons/ozone season. See 67 FR 42519, 42522 

(June 24, 2002). 9Further discussion of the NOX SIP Call 

submittal appears in Section III. In addition, details 

of North Carolina’s EPA-approved NOX SIP Call 

submittal can be found in the proposed rulemaking 

for that approval. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24, 2002). 

10EPA also approved changes to North Carolina’s 

I/M SIP on November 20, 2014. See 79 FR 69051. 

Those changes repealed the regulations pertaining 

to the tail-pipe emissions test because this test was 

obsolete and replaced it with the On-Board 

Diagnostics emissions test. 

11CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs 

to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX emissions 

in 27 eastern states, including North Carolina, that 

contributed to downwind nonattainment or 

interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAIR was 

challenged in federal court and in 2008, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without 

vacatur. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3rd 1176, 

1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 12 In response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of 

CAIR, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR. 

CSAPR requires 28 eastern states, including North 

Carolina, to limit their statewide emissions of SO2

and NOX in order to mitigate transported air 

pollution impacting other states’ ability to attain or 

maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in 

terms of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for 

emissions of annual SO2 and NOX, and/or ozoneseason NOX by each covered state’s large EGUs. The 

CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two 

phases of generally increasing stringency, with 

Phase I budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 

2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions 

in 2017 and later years. CSAPR was challenged in 

the D.C. Circuit, and on August 12, 2012, it was 

vacated and remanded to EPA. The vacatur was 

subsequently reversed by the United States 

Supreme Court on April 29, 2014. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014). 

This litigation ultimately delayed implementation 

of CSAPR for three years. 

13The Tier 2 standards, begun in 2004, continue 

to significantly reduce NOX emissions and EPA 

expects that these standards will reduce NOX

emissions from vehicles by approximately 74 

percent by 2030 (or nearly 3 million tons annually 

by 2030). See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015) 

(citing EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA 420– 

F–99–051 (December 1999). 

14Also begun in 2004, implementation of this 

rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction 

in NOX emissions from diesel trucks and buses by 

2030. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015). 

15EPA estimated that compliance with this rule 

will cut NOX emissions from non-road diesel 

engines by up to 90 percent nationwide. See 80 FR 

44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015). 

1995). Subsequently, North Carolina 

expanded its State I/M program to cover 

39 additional counties in order to 

further improve air quality in the State.5

This expansion included the 26 

counties at issue in this SIP revision, 

none of which were required by Section 

182 of the CAA to be included in the 

I/M program in North Carolina’s SIP.6

While none of the 26 counties at issue 

in the current action were required by 

the CAA to be included in the I/M 

program contained in the SIP, the State 

sought to include them in 2002 as part 

of an expanded I/M program in order to 

use credits from I/M emissions 

reductions from these counties as a 

component of the State’s response to 

EPA’s NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP Call 

was designed to mitigate significant 

transport of NOX, one of the precursors 

of ozone. It required 19 states (including 

North Carolina) and the District of 

Columbia to meet statewide NOX

emissions budgets during the fivemonth period from May 1 through 

September 30, called the ozone season 

(or control period). 

In response to the NOX SIP Call, 

North Carolina made several SIP 

submittals to EPA, including one on 

August 7, 2002, to amend its I/M 

program in the SIP so that it expanded 

application of the SIP-approved I/M 

rules from nine counties to the 48 

counties. As noted above, the purpose of 

this August 7, 2002, SIP revision was to 

allow North Carolina to gain credits 

from the emissions reductions 

(reduction credits) from the expanded 

I/M program for use as a component in 

its Statewide NOX emissions budget 

contained within its NOX SIP Call SIP 

submittal, which was pending before 

EPA at the time.7 See 67 FR 66056. 

Approval of the I/M revision into the 

SIP and the amended rules contained 

therein allowed North Carolina to gain 

reduction credits ranging from 914 tons 

in 2004 to 4,385 tons in 2007 and 

beyond for use in its NOX emissions 

budget. These reduction credits were 

used by the State at the beginning of the 

NOX emissions budget program to allow 

for new growth and to help meet the 

overall budget cap until the affected 

stationary sources could install and 

operate controls needed to meet their 

emissions allowances.8 See 67 FR 66056. 

EPA approved the August 7, 2002, I/M 

SIP revision on October 30, 2002, and 

noted that the revision and EPA’s 

approval resolved the outstanding 

issues associated with the State’s NOX

SIP Call submittal (which EPA had 

proposed for approval on June 24, 

2002). See 67 FR 66056; 67 FR 42519. 

EPA subsequently approved North 

Carolina’s NOX SIP Call submittal (i.e., 

the North Carolina NOX Budget and 

Allowance Trading Program) on 

December 27, 2002 (67 FR 78987).9 10

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s submittal? 

a. Impact on the State’s NOX SIP Call 

Obligations 

North Carolina’s November 17, 2017, 

submittal seeks to remove 26 counties 

from the expanded I/M program 

contained in the SIP. This removal 

consequently removes reliance on the 

I/M reduction credits gained from the 26 

counties’ participation in the expanded 

I/M program from the State’s NOX

emissions budget—a component of the 

State’s response to the NOX SIP Call. 

North Carolina has indicated that it no 

longer needs these reduction credits in 

order to meet its obligations under the 

NOX SIP Call. For the following reasons, 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

removal of the 26 counties from the 

expanded I/M program will not interfere 

with the State’s obligation under the 

NOX SIP Call to meets its Statewide 

NOX emissions budget. 

Subsequent to the NOX SIP Call, a 

number of federal rules, as well as SIPapproved State regulations have created 

significant NOX emissions reductions in 

North Carolina (including ozone season 

reductions) such that any emissions 

reduction credits derived from the 26 

counties’ participation in the expanded 

I/M program are no longer needed in 

order for North Carolina to meets its 

Statewide NOX emissions budget. For 

stationary sources, including large 

EGUs, these federal rules include CAIR 

in 2005 11 and its replacement in 2011, 

the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR).12 In addition, federal mobile 

source-related measures include: The 

Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards; 13

nonroad spark ignition engines and 

recreational engine standards; heavyduty gasoline and diesel highway 

vehicle standards; 14 and large nonroad 

diesel engine standards.15 These mobile 

source measures have resulted in, and 

continue to result in, large reductions in 

NOX emissions over time due to fleet 

turnover (i.e., the replacement of older 

vehicles that predate the standards with 

newer vehicles that meet the standards). 

In 2002, North Carolina also enacted 

and subsequently implemented its 

Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35447 

16North Carolina indicates that the utilities have 

reduced NOX emissions by 83 percent relative to 

the 1998 emissions levels. See Letter from Michael 

A. Abraczinskas, Director of the Division of Air 

Quality for the North Carolina Department of 

Environmental Quality, dated July 11, 2018. 

17From EPA’s proposed approval of North 

Carolina’s NOX SIP Call submission. See 67 FR 

42519 (June 24, 2002). 

18Table 2 also reflects DAQ’s anticipated SIP 

submittal which will request EPA approval to revise 

the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties 

remaining in the expanded I/M program. This SIP 

submittal has not yet been made to EPA and the 

current action does not, and is not intended to, 

address it. 

created system-wide annual emissions 

caps on actual emissions of NOX and 

SO2 from coal-fired power plants within 

the State, the first of which became 

effective in 2007. The CSA required 

certain coal-fired power plants in North 

Carolina to significantly reduce annual 

NOX emissions by 189,000 tons (or 77 

percent) by 2009 (using a 1998 baseline 

year). This represented about a onethird reduction of the NOX emissions 

from all sources in North Carolina. See 

76 FR 36468, 36470 (June 11, 2011).16

With the requirement to meet annual 

emissions caps and disallowing the 

purchase of NOX credits to meet the 

caps, the CSA reduced NOX emissions 

beyond the requirements of the NOX SIP 

Call even though the Act did not limit 

emissions only during the ozone season. 

EPA approved the CSA into North 

Carolina’s SIP on September 26, 2011 

(76 FR 59250). 

Together, implementation of these 

federal rules and SIP-approved State 

regulations have created significant NOX

emissions reductions since North 

Carolina’s NOX emissions budget was 

approved into the SIP in 2002, and for 

EGUs in particular, have significantly 

reduced ozone season NOX emissions 

well below the original NOX SIP Call 

budget. This last point is illustrated in 

Table 1, which compares the EGU NOX

SIP Call budget to actual emissions in 

2007 and 2017. Actual EGU emissions 

in 2007 and 2017 were 23 percent (7,274 

tons) and 60 percent (18,906 tons) below 

the NOX SIP Call budget for EGUs, 

respectively. Notably, the entirety of the 

emissions reduction credits from the 

expanded I/M program (and used by the 

State in its NOX emissions budget) only 

totaled 4,385 tons, of which 

approximately 1,000 tons was initially 

needed to meet the overall budget. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF OZONE SEASON NOX SIP CALL BUDGET TO ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR EGUS

2007 2017 

NOX SIP Call Budget, Tons 17 ................................................................................................................................. 31,451 31,451 

Actual Emissions, Tons ........................................................................................................................................... 24,177 12,545 

Below Budget, Tons ................................................................................................................................................ 7,274 18,906 

Below Budget, Percent ............................................................................................................................................ 23 60 

Table 2 compares the impact of the 

estimated ozone season NOX emissions 

increases due to the proposed change to 

the expanded I/M program on EGU 

reductions and NOX SIP Call I/M 

reduction credits. Using EPA’s Motor 

Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES2014), the DAQ estimates that 

removing the 26 counties from the 

expanded I/M program will increase 

ozone season NOX emissions by 611 

tons. As noted above, in 2017, EGU 

emissions were 18,906 tons (60 percent) 

below the NOX SIP Call budget for 

EGUs. The proposed change to the 

expanded I&M program would lower the 

EGU reduction by about 3 percent to 

18,295 tons below the NOX SIP Call 

budget for EGUs.18 Thus, based on this 

EGU-focused analysis, the DAQ 

concludes that the ozone season NOX

emissions increase associated with the 

proposed change to the expanded I/M 

program has no impact on North 

Carolina’s obligations under the NOX

SIP call to meet its Statewide NOX

emissions budget. 

TABLE 2—IMPACT OF NOX EMISSIONS INCREASES DUE TO PROPOSED CHANGES TO I/M PROGRAM ON EGU REDUCTIONS

AND NOX SIP CALL I/M CREDITS

I/M Emissions Increase in 2018, Tons 

26 Counties .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 611 

22 Counties .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 311 

48 County Total I/M Increase .............................................................................................................................................................. 922 

EGU Reduction in 2017 (from Table 1) .............................................................................................................................................. 18,906 

Net EGU Reduction in 2017 including I/M Increase ........................................................................................................................... 17,984 

In light of the above, EPA is proposing 

to find that North Carolina’s removal of 

the 26 counties from the expanded I/M 

program contained in its SIP (and the 

use of I/M emissions reductions 

generated from those counties as part of 

the reduction credits in the State’s NOX

emissions budget) will not interfere 

with the State’s obligations under the 

NOX SIP Call to meet its Statewide NOX

emissions budget. Subsequent 

promulgation and implementation of a 

number of federal rules and SIPapproved State regulations, and in 

particular those impacting EGUs, have 

created significant NOX emissions 

reductions in the State that are more 

than sufficient to offset the need for 

North Carolina’s reliance on the I/M 

reduction credits from the 26 counties 

in order to meet its Statewide NOX

emissions budget. 

b. Overall Preliminary Conclusions 

Regarding North Carolina’s NonInterference Analyses 

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

section 110(l) non-interference 

demonstrations on a case-by-case basis 

considering the circumstances of each 

SIP revision. EPA interprets section 

110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are 

in effect, including those that have been 

promulgated but for which EPA has not 

yet made designations. The degree of 

analysis focused on any particular 

NAAQS in a non-interference 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
35448 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

19EPA also notes, as a transport related matter, 

that on October 26, 2016, it determined through the 

CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504) that North Carolina 

did not contribute to nonattainment or maintenance 

issues in downwind states for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The 2016 CSAPR Update provides 

technical and related analysis to assist states with 

meeting the good neighbor requirements of the CAA 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the 

CSAPR Update includes projection modeling to 

determine whether individual states contribute 

significantly or not to nonattainment or 

maintenance in other states. On December 9, 2015, 

North Carolina provided a SIP revision addressing 

ozone transport requirements for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standards and made the determination that 

the State did not contribute to nonattainment or 

maintenance issues in any other state. EPA 

approved North Carolina’s submission on October 

4, 2017, with the consideration of EPA’s modeling 

conducted for the CSAPR Update. See 82 FR 46134. 

Also, most recently, EPA conducted modeling for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. That modeling 

preliminarily indicates that North Carolina does not 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance issues in any other state for that 

standard. 

20 3.97 tpd multiplied by 154 days in the ozone 

season equals 611 tons per ozone season. 

demonstration varies depending on the 

nature of the emissions associated with 

the proposed SIP revision. For I/M SIP 

revisions, the most relevant pollutants 

to consider are ozone precursors (i.e., 

NOX and volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and CO. In connection with this 

November 17, 2017, SIP revision, North 

Carolina submitted a non-interference 

demonstration, which EPA analyzes 

below. 

As mentioned above, North Carolina’s 

November 17, 2017, SIP revision 

included a non-interference 

demonstration to support the State’s 

request to remove the 26 counties from 

North Carolina’s SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program. This 

demonstration includes an evaluation of 

the impact that the removal of the I/M 

program for these counties would have 

on North Carolina’s ability to attain or 

maintain any NAAQS in the State. 

Based on the analysis below EPA is 

proposing to find that removal of the 26 

counties from the expanded I/M 

program meets the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(l) and will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of any 

NAAQS in North Carolina.19

i. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

Ozone NAAQS 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). This standard 

was more stringent than the 1-hour 

ozone standard that was promulgated in 

1979. On March 12, 2008, EPA revised 

both the primary and secondary NAAQS 

for ozone to a level of 0.075 ppm to 

provide increased protection of public 

health and the environment. See 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone 

NAAQS retains the same general form 

and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm 

NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at a more 

protective level. Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. On 

October 26, 2015, EPA published a final 

rule lowering the level of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 

65292. 

North Carolina is currently designated 

attainment statewide for the all of the 

ozone NAAQS. In summary, on 

November 6, 2017, EPA designated the 

entire state of North Carolina 

attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 82 FR 54232. 

Additionally, all 26 of the counties 

subject to this proposed rulemaking 

were designated ‘‘unclassifiable/ 

attainment’’ for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. Five (or 

portions thereof) of the 26 

aforementioned counties (i.e., Chatham, 

Edgecombe, Haywood (partial), Nash, 

and Orange) were previously designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard but have since been 

redesignated to attainment. The 

remaining 21 counties were originally 

designated unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

have continued to attain the standard. 

Only seven of the 26 counties to be 

removed from the program have ozone 

monitors. The design values in part per 

billion (ppb) are all well below the 

ozone NAAQS (see Table 3). 

TABLE 3—DESIGN VALUES FOR COUNTIES TO BE REMOVED WITH OZONE

MONITORS

Counties to be removed that 

have ozone monitors 

Ozone design 

value, ppb 

(2014–1016) 

Caldwell ................................ 64 

Carteret ................................. 60 

Edgecombe ........................... 62 

Granville ................................ 64 

Haywood ............................... 66 

Lenoir .................................... 63 

Pitt ......................................... 62 

DAQ’s noninterference analysis 

utilized EPA’s MOVES2014 emission 

modeling system to estimate emissions 

for mobile sources. By 2018, the NOX

emissions reduction resulting from the 

North Carolina I/M program will be 0.25 

ton per day (tpd) or less in each of the 

26 counties that are being requested for 

removal from the I/M program. As 

summarized in Tables 4 and 5, below, 

the MOVES model predicted emission 

increases for only on-road vehicles. The 

results for 2018 show a slight increase 

in anthropogenic NOX emissions for 

each county, as shown in Table 4, 

ranging from 0.08 to 0.25 tpd. The 

present increase in total NOX emissions 

for a county ranges from 0.4 percent to 

4.6 percent. The total increase in NOX

emissions associated with removing all 

26 counties from the I/M program in 

2018 is 3.97 tpd 20 or 1.9 percent of total 

man-made emissions (205 tpd). 

TABLE 4—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2018 FOR 26 COUNTIES

[tpd] 

Counties to be removed 

On-road Non-road Point Area Totals 

I/M No I/M Emission 

increase I/M No I/M I/M No I/M I/M No I/M I/M No I/M Emissions increase 

Brunswick .......................... 2.4 2.6 0.18 4.9 4.9 6.4 6.4 0.5 0.5 14.3 14.5 0.18 

Burke ................................. 2.7 2.9 0.17 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.23 0.23 3.8 3.9 0.17 

Caldwell ............................. 2.1 2.2 0.15 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.29 0.29 3.2 3.4 0.15 

Carteret ............................. 1.1 1.2 0.10 5.4 5.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 6.9 7.0 0.10 

Catawba ............................ 3.2 3.5 0.25 1.4 1.4 35.5 35.5 0.6 0.6 40.9 41.2 0.25 

Chatham ............................ 1.8 2.2 0.14 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.2 4.5 4.6 0.14 

Cleveland .......................... 1.0 3.4 0.20 0.9 0.9 9.3 9.3 0.2 0.2 13.5 13.7 0.20 

Craven ............................... 2.1 1.9 0.13 0.8 0.8 5.3 5.3 0.3 0.3 8.2 8.3 0.13 

Edgecombe ....................... 2.4 1.1 0.08 0.8 0.8 3.4 3.4 0.2 0.2 5.5 5.6 0.08 

Granville ............................ 3.0 2.2 0.11 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.0 3.1 0.11 

Harnett ............................... 2.4 2.6 0.16 0.8 0.8 0.07 0.07 0.4 0.4 3.7 3.9 0.16 

Haywood ........................... 3.0 3.2 0.16 0.4 0.4 8.14 8.14 0.3 0.3 11.9 12.0 0.16 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35449 

TABLE 4—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2018 FOR 26 COUNTIES—Continued 

[tpd] 

Counties to be removed 

On-road Non-road Point Area Totals 

I/M No I/M Emission 

increase I/M No I/M I/M No I/M I/M No I/M I/M No I/M Emissions increase 

Henderson ......................... 2.4 2.6 0.17 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.9 4.1 0.17 

Lenoir ................................ 1.3 1.4 0.10 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.4 2.5 0.10 

Moore ................................ 1.9 2 0.14 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 3.2 3.3 0.14 

Nash .................................. 3.2 3.4 0.19 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.5 5.7 0.19 

Orange .............................. 4.0 4.2 0.21 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.2 6.4 0.21 

Pitt ..................................... 2.4 2.6 0.19 1.3 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 4.9 5.1 0.19 

Robeson ............................ 4.2 4.5 0.25 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 8.4 8.6 0.21 

Rutherford ......................... 1.6 1.7 0.11 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.3 3.4 0.11 

Stanly ................................ 1.6 1.7 0.11 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 2.9 3.1 0.11 

Stokes ............................... 1.2 1.2 0.08 0.3 0.3 20.2 20.2 0.1 0.1 21.9 22.0 0.08 

Surry .................................. 2.8 3 0.17 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 4.0 4.1 0.17 

Wayne ............................... 2.2 2.3 0.16 1.0 1.0 5.5 5.5 0.6 0.6 9.3 9.5 0.16 

Wilkes ................................ 2.0 2.2 0.13 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 3.5 3.6 0.13 

Wilson ................................ 2.1 2.3 0.13 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.3 5.3 5.5 0.13 

Total ........................... 61 65 3.97 31 31 130 130 9.5 9.5 205 209 3.97 

TABLE 5—TOTAL ANTHROPOGENIC VOC EMISSIONS FOR 2018 FOR 26 COUNTIES

[tpd] 

Counties to be removed 

On-road Non-road Point Area Totals 

I/M No I/M Emission 

increase I/M No I/M I/M No I/M I/M No I/M I/M No I/M Emissions increase 

Brunswick .......................... 1.6 1.8 0.14 1.7 1.7 2.6 2.6 3.5 3.5 9.5 9.2 0.14 

Burke ................................. 1.8 1.9 0.14 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.7 3.4 3.4 7.4 7.5 0.14 

Caldwell ............................. 1.7 1.8 0.13 0.7 0.7 3.0 3.0 4.4 4.4 9.9 10 0.13 

Carteret ............................. 1.0 1.1 0.10 5.6 5.6 .23 .23 1.8 1.8 8.7 8.8 0.10 

Catawba ............................ 2.6 2.8 0.22 1.3 1.3 4.9 4.9 12.8 12.8 21.7 21.9 0.22 

Chatham ............................ 1.3 1.4 0.11 0.5 0.5 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.7 5.9 6.0 0.11 

Cleveland .......................... 2.0 2.1 0.16 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.9 3.9 7.0 7.2 0.16 

Craven ............................... 1.3 1.4 0.10 1.0 1.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.6 8.8 8.9 0.11 

Edgecombe ....................... 0.7 0.8 0.07 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 2.6 2.6 4.0 4.1 0.07 

Granville ............................ 1.1 1.2 0.08 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 4.1 4.2 0.08 

Harnett ............................... 1.7 1.9 0.14 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 3.7 3.7 6.5 6.6 0.14 

Haywood ........................... 1.4 1.6 0.11 1.2 1.2 4.6 4.6 1.6 1.6 8.9 9.0 0.11 

Henderson ......................... 1.7 1.8 0.14 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 3.7 3.7 9.3 9.4 0.14 

Lenoir ................................ 0.9 1.0 0.08 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 3.8 3.8 5.4 5.5 0.08 

Moore ................................ 1.6 1.7 0.13 0.7 0.7 0.07 0.07 2.7 2.7 5.1 5.2 0.13 

Nash .................................. 1.7 1.8 0.14 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 4.3 4.3 7.3 7.2 0.14 

Orange .............................. 2.0 2.1 0.16 1.6 1.6 0.4 0.4 3.0 3.0 7.2 7.4 0.16 

Pitt ..................................... 1.8 2.0 0.17 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 5.4 5.4 9.8 10 0.17 

Robeson ............................ 2.2 2.4 0.18 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 5.4 5.4 9.0 9.3 0.19 

Rutherford ......................... 1.3 1.4 0.10 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 2.2 2.2 4.6 4.7 0.10 

Stanly ................................ 1.2 1.3 0.10 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 2.5 2.5 5.8 5.9 0.10 

Stokes ............................... 0.9 1.0 0.08 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.3 3.4 3.4 0.08 

Surry .................................. 1.7 1.8 0.17 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2 3.4 3.4 7.2 7.3 0.13 

Wayne ............................... 1.7 1.8 0.14 0.7 0.7 1.4 1.4 4.8 4.8 8.7 8.8 0.14 

Wilkes ................................ 1.5 1.6 0.12 0.5 0.5 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.7 6.8 6.9 0.12 

Wilson ................................ 1.2 1.4 0.11 0.7 0.7 1.4 1.4 3.3 3.3 6.8 6.97 0.11 

Total ........................... 40 44 3.97 27.5 27.5 38 38 93 93 199 203 3.29 

As shown in Table 6 below, total NOX

and VOC emissions would increase 4.0 

tpd (2.4 percent) and 3.3 tpd (2.8 

percent), respectively. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF ON-ROAD NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING 26 COUNTIES

FROM THE I/M PROGRAM

NOX

emissions 

in 2018 

VOC 

emissions 

in 2018 

Total On-Road Emissions for 48 Counties in Current I/M Program ....................................................................... 168.0 117.6 

Total On-Road Emissions after Removing 26 of 48 Counties from I/M Program .................................................. 172.0 120.9 

Emissions Increases (TPD) ..................................................................................................................................... 3.9 3.3 

Emissions Increases (% of Total On-Road Emissions for 48 Counties) ................................................................ 2.4 2.8 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
35450 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

21Copy of the Consent Decree—http://

www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503Final

CourtOrder.pdf. 

Given the results of North Carolina’s 

emissions analysis, EPA proposes to 

find that removal of the 26 counties 

from the SIP-approved expanded I/M 

program would not interfere with 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in 

the State. 

ii. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 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, and 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). Of the 26 counties 

subject to this rulemaking, only Catawba 

County was designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

Area has since been redesignated to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS and continues to attain this 

NAAQS. See 76 FR 71452 (November 

18, 2011). On November 13, 2009, and 

on January 15, 2015, EPA published 

notices determining that the entire state 

of North Carolina was unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 2006 daily PM2.5

NAAQS and the 2012 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, respectively. See 71 FR 61144 

and 78 FR 3086. 

In North Carolina’s November 17, 

2017, SIP revision, the State concluded 

that the removal of the 26 counties from 

the expanded I/M program would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

pollution control systems for light-duty 

gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M 

program are not designed to reduce 

emissions for PM2.5; therefore, removing 

counties from the program will not have 

any impact on ambient concentrations 

of PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, 

MOVES2014 modeling results indicate 

that removing these 26 counties from 

the expanded I/M program would not 

increase PM2.5 emissions. EPA has 

evaluated the State’s analysis and 

proposes to find that removal of the 26 

counties from the SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program would not 

interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the State. 

iii. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS 

The 2010 NO2 1-hour standard is set 

at 100 ppb, based on the 3-year average 

of the 98th percentile of the yearly 

distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations. The annual standard of 

53 ppb is based on the annual mean 

concentration. 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 November 17, 2017, 

SIP revision, the projected increase in 

total anthropogenic NOX emissions (of 

which NO2 is a component) associated 

with the removal of the 26 counties 

from the expanded I/M program ranges 

from 0.08 to 0.25 tpd in 2018. All NO2

monitors in the State are measuring 

below the annual NO2 standard, and all 

near road monitors are measuring well 

below the 1-hour NO2 standard. Given 

the current unclassifiable/attainment 

designation and the results of North 

Carolina’s emissions analysis which 

show a de minimis increase, EPA 

proposes to find that removal of the 26 

counties from the SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program would not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS in the State. 

iv. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO 

NAAQS 

EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 

1971 and has retained the standards 

since its last review of the standard in 

2011. The primary NAAQS for CO 

include: (1) An 8-hour standard of 9.0 

ppm, measured using the annual second 

highest 8-hour concentration for two 

consecutive years as the design value; 

and (2) a 1-hour average of 35 ppm, 

using the second highest 1-hour average 

within a given year. The 26 counties 

subject to this proposed action have 

always been unclassifiable/attainment 

for the CO NAAQS. 

In North Carolina’s November 17, 

2017, SIP revision, the State concluded 

that the removal of the 26 counties from 

the expanded I/M program would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS. 

MOVES2014 mobile emissions 

modeling results show a slight increase 

in CO emissions for each of the 26 

counties ranging from 1.0 tpd (Stakes 

County) to 4.3 tpd (Robeson County) in 

2018. This increase is minimal and is 

not expected to interfere with continued 

attainment of the CO NAAQS in any of 

the 26 counties or adjacent counties. 

Statewide, the current ambient air 

quality levels for CO are less than 20 

percent of the CO NAAQS. For these 

reasons, EPA proposes to find that 

removal of the 26 counties from the SIPapproved expanded I/M program would 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

CO NAAQS in the State. 

v. Non-Interference Analysis for the SO2

NAAQS 

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

revised the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to 75 

ppb which became effective on August 

23, 2010. On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 

47191), EPA initially 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. 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.21 For North Carolina, EPA 

designated the entire state attainment/ 

unclassifiable for SO2 (pursuant to a 

consent decree) on December 21, 2017 

(effective April 9, 2018 https://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-01-09/ 

pdf/2017-28423.pdf) except for the 

following townships/counties: 

Beaverdam Township (Haywood 

County); Limestone Township 

(Buncombe County); and Cunningham 

Township (Person County). Counties 

listed above deployed monitors which 

EPA intends to designate by December 

2020. Also, a portion of Brunswick 

County was designated unclassifiable 

effective in August 2016. 

Based on the technical analysis in 

North Carolina’s November 17, 2017, 

SIP revision, the State concluded that 

removal of the 26 counties from the 

expanded I/M program would not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. The 

pollution control systems for light-duty 

gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M 

program are not designed to reduce 

emissions for SO2; therefore, removing 

counties from the program will not have 

any impact on ambient concentrations 

of SO2. In addition, sulfur content in 

fuel has been significantly decreased 

through EPA’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 35451 

rulemakings which tightened engine 

standards and required fuel 

formulations contain reduced levels of 

sulfur. See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 

2000) and 81 FR 23641 (April 22, 2016). 

MOVES2014 modeling results indicate 

that removing the 26 counties from the 

expanded I/M program would not 

increase SO2 emissions. For these 

reasons, EPA proposes to find that 

removal of the 26 counties from the SIPapproved expanded I/M program would 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS in the State. 

vi. Non-Interference Analysis for 2008 

Lead NAAQS 

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), 

EPA promulgated a revised primary and 

secondary lead NAAQS of 0.15 mg/m3. 

Under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 

50, the 2008 lead NAAQS are met when 

the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean 

concentration for a 3-year period, as 

determined in accordance with 

Appendix R of 40 CFR part 50, is less 

than or equal to 0.15 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 

50.16. On November 8, 2011, EPA 

designated the entire State of North 

Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment for 

that NAAQS. See 76 FR 72907. North 

Carolina’s ambient lead levels have 

remained well below the standard. The 

pollution control systems for light-duty 

gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M 

program are not designed to reduce 

emissions for lead; therefore, removing 

counties from the program will not have 

any impact on ambient concentrations 

of lead. MOVES 2014 modeling results 

indicate that removing 26 counties from 

the expanded I/M program would not 

increase lead emissions. For these 

reasons, EPA proposes to find that 

removal of the 26 counties from the SIPapproved expanded I/M program would 

not interfere with maintenance of the 

2008 lead NAAQS in the State. 

IV. Proposed Action 

For the reasons explained above in 

Section III of this proposed rulemaking, 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Carolina’s November 17, 2017, SIP 

revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve the removal of Brunswick, 

Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, Catawba, 

Chatham, Cleveland, Craven, 

Edgecombe, Granville, Harnett, 

Haywood, Henderson, Lenoir, Moore, 

Nash, Orange, Pitt, Robeson, Rutherford, 

Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Wayne, Wilkes, 

and Wilson counties, from the SIPapproved expanded I/M program. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to find 

that North Carolina’s removal of the 26 

counties from the SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program (and the removal 

of reliance on the I/M emissions 

reductions generated from those 

counties as part of the ‘‘credits’’ in 

North Carolina’s NOX emissions budget) 

will not interfere with the State’s 

obligations under the NOX SIP Call to 

meet its Statewide NOX emissions 

budget. In addition, EPA is also 

proposing to find that the removal of the 

26 counties from the SIP-approved 

expanded I/M program will not interfere 

with continued attainment or 

maintenance of any applicable NAAQS 

or with any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA, and that North 

Carolina has satisfied the requirements 

of section 110(l) of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided they meet the criteria of the 

CAA. This action merely proposes to 

approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 16, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15813 Filed 7–25–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2018–0536; FRL–9981– 

19—Region 7] 

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Approval of 

the State Implementation Plan and the 

Operating Permits Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), and the 

Operating Permits Program. The 

proposed revisions clarify the types of 

mailing services that may be used for 

submitting construction and operating 

permit applications, and clarify that 

applications are not required to be 

submitted by certified mail. The 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS