[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35444-35451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15813]


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

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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budgets. EPA 
is

[[Page 35445]]

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e0d161b1d15121b0c50151b1212073e1b0e1f50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7b4afa2a4acaba2b5e9aca2ababbe87a2b7a6e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
Budget and Allowance Trading Program. Section III provides EPA's 
analysis of the submittal, including information submitted by North 
Carolina to support a non-interference 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions generated by this expanded program as a component 
of the State's NO<INF>X</INF> 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 on-
board 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget and Allowance Trading Program. See 67 FR 
66056. North Carolina's NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Section II, below, for a more detailed discussion of the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget and Allowance Trading 
Program) will not interfere with North Carolina's obligations under the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call submission, which have created significant 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call Statewide NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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. This letter is part of 
the Docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call and the State's 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
CAA-required I/M program for nine counties.\4\ See 60 FR 28720 (June 2,

[[Page 35446]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The nine counties are Mecklenburg, Wake, Cabarrus, Durham, 
Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, 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.
    \5\ North Carolina Session Law 1999-328, Section 3.1(d) and 
Section 3.8.
    \6\ 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 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call. The NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call was designed to 
mitigate significant transport of NO<INF>X</INF>, one of the precursors 
of ozone. It required 19 states (including North Carolina) and the 
District of Columbia to meet statewide NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budgets 
during the five-month period from May 1 through September 30, called 
the ozone season (or control period).
    In response to the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget contained within its 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget. These 
reduction credits were used by the State at the beginning of the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call submittal (i.e., the 
North Carolina NO<INF>X</INF> Budget and Allowance Trading Program) on 
December 27, 2002 (67 FR 78987).<SUP>9 10</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ North Carolina's Statewide NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget 
is 165,022 tons per ozone season. See 40 CFR 51.121(g)(2)(ii).
    \8\ While 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget of 
165,022 tons/ozone season. See 67 FR 42519, 42522 (June 24, 2002).
    \9\ Further discussion of the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call submittal 
appears in Section III. In addition, details of North Carolina's 
EPA-approved NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call submittal can be found in the 
proposed rulemaking for that approval. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24, 
2002).
    \10\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget--a component of the 
State's response to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call. North Carolina has 
indicated that it no longer needs these reduction credits in order to 
meet its obligations under the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call to meets its 
Statewide NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget.
    Subsequent to the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, a number of federal 
rules, as well as SIP-approved State regulations have created 
significant NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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; heavy-duty 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> in order to mitigate transported 
air pollution impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain 
four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of 
maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF>, and/or ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
    \13\ The Tier 2 standards, begun in 2004, continue to 
significantly reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and EPA expects that 
these standards will reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
    \14\ Also begun in 2004, implementation of this rule is expected 
to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 
diesel trucks and buses by 2030. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 
2015).
    \15\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 
percent nationwide. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, North Carolina also enacted and subsequently implemented 
its Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which

[[Page 35447]]

created system-wide annual emissions caps on actual emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by 189,000 tons 
(or 77 percent) by 2009 (using a 1998 baseline year). This represented 
about a one-third reduction of the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> credits to meet the caps, the CSA reduced 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions beyond the requirements of the NO<INF>X</INF> 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ North Carolina indicates that the utilities have reduced 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, implementation of these federal rules and SIP-approved 
State regulations have created significant NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
reductions since North Carolina's NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget was 
approved into the SIP in 2002, and for EGUs in particular, have 
significantly reduced ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> emissions well below 
the original NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call budget. This last point is 
illustrated in Table 1, which compares the EGU NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions increases due to the proposed change to the 
expanded I/M program on EGU reductions and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions by 611 tons. As noted above, in 2017, EGU emissions were 
18,906 tons (60 percent) below the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call budget for EGUs.\18\ Thus, based on this EGU-
focused analysis, the DAQ concludes that the ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions increase associated with the proposed change 
to the expanded I/M program has no impact on North Carolina's 
obligations under the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP call to meet its Statewide 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ From EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call submission. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24, 2002).
    \18\ Table 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.

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget) will not interfere with the State's 
obligations under the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call to meet its Statewide 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget. Subsequent promulgation and 
implementation of a number of federal rules and SIP-approved State 
regulations, and in particular those impacting EGUs, have created 
significant NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget.

b. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding North Carolina's Non-
Interference 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

[[Page 35448]]

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., 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Ozone design
     Counties to be removed that have ozone monitors        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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for each county, as 
shown in Table 4, ranging from 0.08 to 0.25 tpd. The present increase 
in total NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for a county ranges from 0.4 percent 
to 4.6 percent. The total increase in NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 3.97 tpd multiplied by 154 days in the ozone season equals 
611 tons per ozone season.

                                           Table 4--Total Anthropogenic NOX Emissions for 2018 for 26 Counties
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         On-road                  Non-road              Point               Area                      Totals
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Counties to be removed                          Emission                                                                                   Emissions
                                 I/M     No I/M    increase     I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M     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

[[Page 35449]]

 
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         On-road                  Non-road              Point               Area                      Totals
                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Counties to be removed                          Emission                                                                                   Emissions
                                 I/M     No I/M    increase     I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M      I/M     No I/M     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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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            168.0           117.6
 in Current I/M Program.................
Total On-Road Emissions after Removing             172.0           120.9
 26 of 48 Counties from I/M Program.....
Emissions Increases (TPD)...............             3.9             3.3
Emissions Increases (% of Total On-Road              2.4             2.8
 Emissions for 48 Counties).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35450]]

    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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) NAAQS
    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA 
established an annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations, and a 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to 35 
[mu]g/m\3\, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS of 35 
[mu]g/m\3\ but revised the annual primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to 
12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    EPA promulgated designations for the 1997 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. 
This Area has since been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 Annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and the 2012 Annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. The pollution control systems for light-duty 
gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not designed to reduce 
emissions for PM<INF>2.5</INF>; therefore, removing counties from the 
program will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In addition, MOVES2014 modeling results 
indicate that removing these 26 counties from the expanded I/M program 
would not increase PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the State.
iii. Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 
(NO<INF>2</INF>) NAAQS
    The 2010 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions (of which NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 
monitors in the State are measuring below the annual NO<INF>2</INF> 
standard, and all near road monitors are measuring well below the 1-
hour NO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>2</INF> 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 SIP-approved expanded I/M 
program would not interfere with maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the 
State.
v. Non-Interference Analysis for the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS
    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Copy of the Consent Decree--http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The pollution control systems 
for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not 
designed to reduce emissions for SO<INF>2</INF>; therefore, removing 
counties from the program will not have any impact on ambient 
concentrations of SO<INF>2</INF>. In addition, sulfur content in fuel 
has been significantly decreased through EPA's Tier 2 and Tier 3

[[Page 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. For these reasons, 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 [micro]g/m\3\. 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 [micro]g/m\3\. 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 SIP-approved 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 SIP-approved 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions budget) will not interfere with the 
State's obligations under the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call to meet its 
Statewide NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>