Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69051 

■ 2. In § 25.2, revise the definition of 

‘‘ATF’’ to read as follows: 

§ 25.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

ATF means the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 25.6, revise paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 25.6 Accessing records in the system. 

* * * * * 

(j) Access to the NICS Index for 

purposes unrelated to NICS background 

checks required by the Brady Act. 

Access to the NICS Index for purposes 

unrelated to NICS background checks 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) shall be 

limited to uses for the purposes of: 

(1) Providing information to Federal, 

state, tribal, or local criminal justice 

agencies in connection with the 

issuance of a firearm-related or 

explosives-related permit or license, 

including permits or licenses to possess, 

acquire, or transfer a firearm, or to carry 

a concealed firearm, or to import, 

manufacture, deal in, or purchase 

explosives; 

(2) Responding to an inquiry from the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives in connection with a 

civil or criminal law enforcement 

activity relating to the Gun Control Act 

(18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or the National 

Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53); or, 

(3) Disposing of firearms in the 

possession of a Federal, state, tribal, or 

local criminal justice agency. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 25.9, revise paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 25.9 Retention and destruction of 

records in the system. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) NICS denied transaction records 

obtained or created in the course of the 

operation of the system will be retained 

in the Audit Log for 10 years, after 

which time they will be transferred to 

an appropriate FBI-maintained 

electronic database. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 13, 2014. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27386 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0772; FRL–9919–10- 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR) on January 31, 2008, May 24, 

2010, October 11, 2013, and February 

11, 2014, pertaining to rules for changes 

to the North Carolina Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program. 

Specifically, these SIP revisions update 

the North Carolina I/M program as well 

as repeal one rule that is included in the 

federally-approved SIP. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on January 20, 2015 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives relevant 

adverse comment by December 22, 

2014. If EPA receives such comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that this rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0772, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0772,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0772’’. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA notes that OBD is more accurate than 

tailpipe testing and provides for earlier detection of 

vehicles that do not meet the performance 

standards. 

2While North Carolina’s submission provides 

changes to regulation 15A NCAC 02D .1006 and a 

repeal of 15A NCAC 02D .1009, these regulations 

were never incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP and thus no action on EPA’s part is 

needed related to the changes for regulation 15A 

NCAC 02D .1006, and the repeal of 15A NCAC 02D 

.1009. 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. For 

information regarding the I/M program, 

contact Ms. Amanetta Somerville, Air 

Quality Modeling and Transportation 

Section, at the same address above. 

Telephone number: (404) 562–9025; 

email address: somerville.amanetta@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Today’s Action 

II. Background 

III. EPA’s Analysis of North Carolina’s SIP 

Revisions 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Today’s Action 

EPA is approving four SIP revisions 

submitted by NC DENR on January 31, 

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

and February 11, 2014. Specifically, 

these SIP revisions relate to changes for 

North Carolina’s I/M rules as well as the 

repeal of one rule (section 15A NCAC 

2D .1004 within the Motor Vehicle 

Emission Control Standards). 

The January 31, 2008, SIP revision 

submitted by NC DENR involves 

multiple regulatory changes to the North 

Carolina SIP. This action, however, 

pertains only to the portion of North 

Carolina’s January 31, 2008, SIP revision 

which revises section 15A NCAC 02D 

.1000, Motor Vehicle Emission Control 

Standard, to account for the repeal of 

regulation 15A NCAC 02D .1004, 

Tailpipe Emission Standards for Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbon (HC). 

Regulation 15A NCAC 2D .1004, was 

repealed because it is obsolete, and 

today, EPA is removing this provision 

from the SIP. The requirement for 

tailpipe emission testing for passenger 

motor vehicles has been replaced by onboard diagnostics (OBD) testing in 15A 

NCAC 02D .1005. This change to North 

Carolina’s I/M rules became State 

effective on July 1, 2007.1

The May 24, 2010, SIP revision 

submitted by NC DENR involves 

additional changes to the North Carolina 

I/M program, however, on October 11, 

2013, NC DENR submitted a subsequent 

SIP revision to supplement and replace 

the May 24, 2010, revision. Specifically, 

the May 24, 2010, submission included 

changes regarding the I/M portion of the 

North Carolina SIP narrative to reflect 

changes to the areas impacted by the 

North Carolina I/M program and the 

internal procedures for the management 

of the I/M program. These changes were 

revised by the October 11, 2013, SIP 

revision, which also amended the SIP to 

reflect changes to the internal 

procedures for the management of the 

I/M program. 

The October 11, 2013, SIP revision 

submitted by NC DENR also provided a 

technical demonstration of noninterference to address whether pending 

changes to the State’s I/M program 

would interfere with air quality in North 

Carolina areas subject to the I/M 

program. The pending rule changes 

were triggered by North Carolina 

General Assembly Session Law 2012– 

199, which incorporated an exemption 

from emission inspection for the three 

newest model year vehicles with less 

than 70,000 miles on their odometers in 

all areas in the State where I/M is 

required. In addition, these rule changes 

were also necessitated by the North 

Carolina General Assembly Session Law 

2011–95, which exempted plug-in 

vehicles from emission inspection 

requirements. 

On February 11, 2014, as a 

supplement to North Carolina’s October 

11, 2013, SIP revision, NC DENR 

submitted a SIP revision incorporating 

the necessary rule changes related to the 

North Carolina General Assembly 

Session Laws 2011–95 and 2012–199 

statutory exemption from emission 

inspection for plug-in vehicles and for 

the three newest model year vehicles 

with less than 70,000 miles on their 

odometers in all areas in the State where 

I/M is required under SIP section 15A 

NCAC 02D .1000, Motor Vehicle 

Emission Control Standard. Specifically 

rules 15A NCAC 02D .1002, .1003, 

.1005, and .1006 were amended, and 

15A NCAC 02D .1009 was repealed.2

More information on EPA’s analysis 

of North Carolina’s SIP revisions related 

to changes in the State’s I/M program is 

provided Section III of this rulemaking. 

II. Background 

The North Carolina I/M program 

began in 1982 in Mecklenburg County. 

From 1986 through 1991 the program 

expanded to include eight additional 

counties (Wake, Forsyth, Guilford, 

Durham, Gaston, Cabarrus, Orange and 

Union County) based on a ‘‘tail-pipe’’ 

emissions test. In 1999, the North 

Carolina General Assembly passed 

legislation to expand the coverage area 

for the I/M program in the State in order 

to gain additional emission reductions 

to achieve the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

in the State. The vehicle testing 

requirements in these expanded 

counties were OBD requirements rather 

than tail-pipe testing requirements. 

Starting in October 2002, the original 

nine counties converted from tail-pipe 

testing to the new OBD emission testing 

for all model year (MY) 1996 and newer 

light duty gasoline vehicles and 

continued tail-pipe testing of MY 1995 

and older vehicles. The program began 

to expand from nine counties starting in 

July 2003 to a total of 48 counties (the 

nine original counties plus Alamance, 

Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, 

Carteret, Catawba, Chatham, Cleveland, 

Craven, Cumberland, Davidson, 

Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, 

Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, 

Johnston, Lee, Lenoir, Moore, Nash, 

New Hanover, Onslow, Orange, Pitt, 

Randolph, Robeson, Rockingham, 

Rutherford, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Wake, 

Wayne, Wilkes, and Wilson) on July 1, 

2006. At the time of full implementation 

of the OBD program, inspection stations 

were performing the OBD emissions test 

on MY 1996 and newer vehicles, and 

tailpipe testing on MY 1995 and older 

vehicles were discontinued. 

EPA most recently approved changes 

to North Carolina’s I/M program in the 

SIP on October 30, 2002. See 67 FR 

66056. Since that time, North Carolina 

has submitted additional changes to its 

program, which EPA is now acting 

upon. Specifically, North Carolina 

submitted SIP revisions related to the 

State’s I/M program on January 31, 

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

and February 11, 2014. EPA’s analysis 

of the aforementioned North Carolina 

SIP revisions related to changes in the 

State’s I/M program is provided Section 

III of this rulemaking. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of North Carolina’s 

SIP Revisions 

Through SIP revisions provided on 

January 31, 2008, May 24, 2010, October 

11, 2013, and February 11, 2014, NC 

DENR requested that EPA take action to 

update the State’s implementation plan 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69053 

3The Charlotte Area is comprised of 

Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan, 

Union and Iredell Counties. 

4The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes 

health and welfare based standards are CO, Lead, 

NO2, Ozone, PM, and Sulfur Dioxide. 

to include changes for the I/M program 

in North Carolina. For any changes to 

provisions that are already included in 

the federally-approved SIP, EPA must 

consider section 110(l) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 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 Act. The section 

110(l) non-interference demonstration is 

a case-by-case determination based 

upon the circumstances of each SIP 

revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as 

applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, 

including those that have been 

promulgated, but for which the EPA has 

not yet made designations. The specific 

elements of the 110(l) analysis 

contained in the SIP revision depend on 

the circumstances and emissions 

analyses associated with that revision. 

EPA’s analysis of North Carolina’s SIP 

revisions related to changes for the I/M 

program, including review of section 

110(l) requirements, is provided below. 

On October 11, 2013, NC DENR 

submitted a SIP revision to provide the 

non-interference technical 

demonstration related to the changes for 

North Carolina’s I/M program that 

resulted from the passage of North 

Carolina General Assembly Session 

Laws 2011–95 and 2012–199 as well as 

the other revisions described herein to 

the State’s I/M program, such as the 

discontinuation of tailpipe testing MY 

1995 and older vehicles. This noninterference demonstration also 

accounts for the previous repeal of 

regulation 15A NCAC 02D .1004, where 

applicable. Specifically, this 

demonstration considers the changes to 

the State’s I/M program in three 

geographical areas that cover the entire 

48 counties where the I/M program is 

required. The three geographical areas 

are as follows: The Charlotte Area; the 

Greensboro Area; and the remainder of 

the 48 counties not covered in the 

Charlotte and Greensboro Area analyses. 

More information on the noninterference demonstration and EPA’s 

analysis for each Area is described 

below. 

a. Analysis of the Non-Interference 

Demonstration for the Charlotte Area 

As indicated above, on October 11, 

2013, NC DENR provided a technical 

demonstration with modeling to 

account for changes to the North 

Carolina I/M program in the seven 

county Charlotte Area.3 Specifically, the 

technical demonstration modifies the 

existing 175A(a) maintenance plan for 

the Charlotte Area to account for 

changes to the I/M program including 

the exemption of the three newest 

model year vehicles under 70,000 miles 

and plug in vehicles for this area, and 

the change in I/M compliance rate from 

95 percent to 96 percent. North 

Carolina’s October 11, 2013, SIP 

revision includes an evaluation of the 

impact that the increase in model year 

exemptions would have on the 

attainment and or maintenance of the 

1997 and 2008 ozone standards and on 

other applicable NAAQS. 

Specifically, North Carolina’s October 

11, 2013, SIP revision includes a 

technical demonstration which revised 

mobile source emissions modeling using 

EPA’s approved models—Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010b— 

to demonstrate non-interference for the 

SIP revisions to expand the I/M 

exemptions and to account for the 

increase in the I/M compliance rate 

from 95 percent to 96 percent. In that 

technical demonstration, NC DENR 

provided information regarding the 

emissions projections from the I/M 

program changes for carbon monoxide 

and for the precursor of ozone (i.e., 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs)). To 

determine these emissions, NC DENR’s 

demonstration compared the current 95 

percent I/M compliance rate and the 1 

model year exemption emissions 

inventory to the 96 percent I/M 

compliance rate and the 3 model year 

exemption for the Charlotte Area. This 

comparison for the Charlotte Area is 

shown below in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—CHANGES IN EMISSIONS FOR CHARLOTTE AREA

Emissions 

(kg/day) 

Current I/M 

program 

(95% compliance 

rate, 1 year 

exemption) 

Target I/M 

program 

(96% compliance 

rate, 3 year 

exemption) 

Difference 

between 95% 

and 96% 

compliance rate 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 98,157 98,122 ¥35 

VOC ........................................................................................................................... 48,545 48,523 ¥22 

CO .............................................................................................................................. 1,047,712 1,047,737 24 

Table 1 above indicates an emissions 

benefit for the changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program with regard to 

the ozone precursor emissions (i.e., NOX

and VOC), and a slight emissions 

increase with regards to emissions for 

CO. There is no difference in emissions 

anticipated as a result of North Carolina 

I/M program changes for particulate 

matter (PM), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

or nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Accordingly, 

in this action, EPA is making the 

determination that the applicable 

NAAQS 4 of interest for the noninterference demonstration required by 

section 110(l) of the CAA are the ozone 

and CO standards. 

In addition to the information 

provided in North Carolina’s technical 

demonstration, EPA reviewed the most 

recent preliminary ozone air quality 

data for the Charlotte Area, and it 

appears that the Area is currently 

monitoring attaining levels for all ozone 

NAAQS (including the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for which the area is 

currently designated nonattainment). 

While the Charlotte Area is currently a 

nonattainment area for ozone, the 

changes to North Carolina’s I/M 

program are not anticipated to increase 

emissions in ozone precursors (i.e., VOC 

and NOX—see Table 1 above), so EPA 

does not expect these changes to 

interfere with the Area’s ability to attain 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

also notes that the Charlotte Area has 

not been designated for the SO2

NAAQS, and is currently designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. 

The Charlotte Area is also in 

attainment of the CO NAAQS and has 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69054 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5Based upon the projected CO emissions increase 

of 24 kg/day, the difference in CO emissions per 

day of the target I/M Program represents an increase 

of only 0.002291% over CO emissions under the 

Current I/M Program. 

6The Greensboro Area is comprised of Guilford, 

Forsyth, and Davidson Counties. 7The remaining counties include: Alamance, 

Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, 

Catawba, Chatham, Cleveland, Craven, Cumberland, 

Durham, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Harnett, 

Haywood, Henderson, Johnston, Lee, Lenoir, 

Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Onslow, Orange, Pitt, 

Randolph, Robeson, Rockingham, Rutherford, 

Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Wake, Wayne, Wilkes, and 

Wilson Counties. 

current monitoring levels of CO well 

below the standard. Even though there 

is a slight emissions increase from this 

rule change for CO emissions, given the 

Charlotte Area’s CO monitoring levels 

that are well below the CO NAAQS, 

EPA does not believe that the slight 

increase in CO emissions will cause the 

Area to come out of compliance with 

the CO NAAQS.5 Consequently, EPA 

has concluded that the new modeling 

associated with these changes 

demonstrates that the changes for North 

Carolina’s I/M program in the seven 

counties in the Charlotte Area will not 

interfere with the Area’s ability to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. 

b. Analysis of the Non-Interference 

Demonstration for the Greensboro Area 

In its October 11, 2013, SIP revision, 

NC DENR provided a technical 

demonstration with modeling to 

account for changes to the North 

Carolina I/M program in the threecounty Greensboro Area 6 similar to the 

demonstration that was conducted for 

the Charlotte Area to account for the 

same changes to North Carolina’s I/M 

program. Table 2 provides the changes 

in emissions that will result from the 

changes to North Carolina’s I/M 

program in the Greensboro Area. 

TABLE 2—CHANGES IN EMISSIONS FOR GREENSBORO AREA

Emissions 

(kg/day) 

Current I/M 

program 

(95% compliance 

rate, 1 year 

exemption) 

Target I/M 

program 

(96% compliance 

rate, 3 year 

exemption) 

Difference 

between 95% 

and 96% 

compliance rate 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 36,157 36,143 ¥15 

VOC ........................................................................................................................... 19,965 19,954 ¥11 

CO .............................................................................................................................. 492,801 492,720 ¥82 

Table 2 above indicates an emissions 

benefit for the changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program with regard to 

the ozone precursor emissions (i.e., NOX

and VOC), and for CO. There is no 

difference in emissions anticipated as a 

result of North Carolina I/M program 

changes for PM, Lead, SO2 or NO2. In 

this action, EPA is making the 

determination that the applicable 

NAAQS of interest for the noninterference demonstration required by 

section 110(l) of the CAA are the ozone 

and CO standards. 

In addition to the information 

provided in North Carolina’s technical 

demonstration, EPA reviewed the most 

recent preliminary ozone air quality 

data for the Greensboro Area, and it 

appears that the area is monitoring 

attaining levels for all ozone NAAQS. 

The Greensboro Area has not been 

designated for the SO2 NAAQS, and is 

currently designated unclassifiable/

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, the 2008 8-hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Consequently, EPA has concluded that 

the new modeling associated with these 

changes demonstrates that the changes 

for North Carolina’s I/M program in the 

three counties of the Greensboro Area 

will not interfere with the Area’s ability 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

c. Analysis of the Non-Interference 

Demonstration of the Remaining 

Counties Area 

NC DENR provided a technical 

demonstration with modeling to 

account for changes to the North 

Carolina I/M program in the 38 counties 

outside of the seven Charlotte Area 

counties and the three Greensboro Area 

counties (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Remaining Counties Area’’) 7 in its 

October 11, 2013, SIP revision. Table 3 

provides the changes in emissions that 

will result from the change to North 

Carolina’s I/M program in the 

Remaining Counties. 

TABLE 3—CHANGES IN EMISSIONS FOR REMAINING COUNTIES AREA

Emissions 

(kg/day) 

Current I/M 

program 

(95% compliance 

rate, 1 year 

exemption) 

Target I/M 

program 

(96% compliance 

rate, 3 year 

exemption) 

Difference 

between 95% 

and 96% 

compliance rate 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 226,196 226,113 ¥83 

VOC ........................................................................................................................... 115,443 115,384 ¥59 

CO .............................................................................................................................. 2,560,587 2,560,367 ¥220 

Table 3 above indicates an emissions 

benefit for the changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program with regard to 

the ozone precursor emissions (i.e., NOX

and VOC), and for CO. There is no 

difference in emissions anticipated as a 

result of North Carolina I/M program 

changes for PM, Lead, SO2 or NO2. In 

this action, EPA is making the 

determination that the applicable 

NAAQS of interest for the noninterference demonstration required by 

section 110(l) of the CAA are the ozone 

and CO standards. 

In addition to the information 

provided in North Carolina’s technical 

demonstration, EPA reviewed the most 

recent preliminary ozone air quality 

data for this Area, and it appears that 

the Remaining Counties Area is 

monitoring attaining levels for all ozone 

NAAQS. The Remaining Counties Area 

has not been designated for the SO2

NAAQS, and is currently designated 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69055 

8As noted above, there are no difference in 

emissions anticipated as a result of North Carolina’s 

I/M program changes for PM, Lead, SO2 or NO2. 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the 2008 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS and the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. Consequently, EPA has 

concluded that the new modeling 

associated with these changes 

demonstrates that the changes for North 

Carolina’s I/M program in the 

Remaining Counties Area will not 

interfere with the Area’s ability to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. 

d. Conclusion 

Based upon the above analysis, EPA’s 

overall conclusion with regards to North 

Carolina’s changes to the State’s I/M 

program is that these changes are 

consistent with the CAA and will not 

interfere with any of the affected Areas’ 

ability to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS. While the individual area 

analyses appear to demonstrate that 

these changes provide an overall 

emissions benefit for each Area, the 

benefit is even more pronounced when 

the total emission reductions from the 

entire area covered by the North 

Carolina I/M program are considered. 

Table 4 below provides the changes in 

emissions that will result from the 

change to North Carolina’s I/M program 

in all of the affected counties. 

TABLE 4—CHANGES IN EMISSIONS FOR ALL AFFECTED COUNTIES

Emissions 

(kg/day) 

Current I/M 

program 

(95% compliance 

rate, 1 year 

exemption) 

Target I/M 

program 

(96% compliance 

rate, 3 year 

exemption) 

Difference 

between 95% 

and 96% 

compliance rate 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 360,510 360,377 ¥133 

VOC ........................................................................................................................... 183,953 183,860 ¥92 

CO .............................................................................................................................. 4,101,100 4,100,823 ¥277 

Table 4 above indicates an emissions 

benefit for the changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program with regard to 

the ozone precursor emissions (i.e., NOX

and VOC), and for CO.8 This provides 

further support for EPA’s overall 

determination that the changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS, or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving changes to North 

Carolina’s I/M program as provided in 

SIP revisions dated January 31, 2008, 

May 24, 2010, October 11, 2013, and 

February 11, 2014. First, EPA is 

approving the repeal of regulation 15A 

NCAC 02D .1004 as provided in North 

Carolina’s January 31, 2008. EPA has 

made the determination that the repeal 

of this regulation is acceptable because 

it is obsolete and replaced by OBD. This 

change to the program was accounted 

for in North Carolina’s modeling 

included with the October 11, 2013, 

non-interference demonstrations. EPA is 

also approving North Carolina’s rule 

changes as provided in North Carolina’s 

May 24, 2010, and February 11, 2014, 

SIP revisions, which are also supported 

by the State’s technical non-interference 

demonstration provided through the 

October 11, 2013 SIP revision. EPA has 

made the determination that North 

Carolina’s technical non-interference 

demonstration supports a conclusion 

that these rule changes will not interfere 

with air quality goals in areas in North 

Carolina. EPA has also made the 

determination that these SIP revisions 

with regard to the aforementioned 

provisions are approvable because they 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views these actions as non-controversial 

revisions and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should relevant adverse comment be 

filed. This rule will be effective on 

January 20, 2015 without further notice 

unless the Agency receives relevant 

adverse comment by December 22, 

2014. If EPA receives such comments, 

EPA will publish a document 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. EPA will address all 

relevant adverse comments received 

during the comment period in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so by December 22, 2014. If no 

such comments are received, this rule 

will be effective on January 20, 2015 

and no further action will be taken on 

the proposed rule. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this final action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69056 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 20, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 23, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. In § 52.1770: 

■ a. Table 1 in paragraph (c) is amended 

by revising the entries for ‘‘Sect .1002,’’ 

‘‘Sect .1003,’’ and ‘‘Sect .1005;’’ and 

removing the entry for ‘‘Sect .1004.’’ 

■ b. In paragraph (e), the table is 

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

North Carolina Inspection and 

Maintenance Program’’ at the end of the 

table. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements 

*******

Section .1000 Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Standard 

*******

Sect .1002 .................................. Applicability ................................ 1/1/2014 11/20/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].

Sect .1003 .................................. Definitions ................................... 2/1/2014 11/20/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].

Sect .1005 .................................. On-Board Diagnostic Standards 1/1/2014 11/20/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

Non-Interference Demonstration for the 

North Carolina Inspection and Maintenance Program.

10/11/2013 11/20/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69057 

[FR Doc. 2014–27030 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 13–184; FCC 14–99] 

Modernization of the Schools and 

Libraries ‘‘E-Rate’’ Program 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: On July 23, 2014, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) released a document 

which contained information collection 

requirements for the schools and 

libraries universal service mechanism 

(E-rate) which required approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) granted approval on 

October 27, 2014, under emergency 

processing for certain of the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

Report and Order as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

DATES: The amendments to 

§§ 54.502(b)(3) and (5), 54.504(a), and 

54.516(a) through (c), in WC Docket No. 

13–184, FCC 14–99, that appeared in the 

Federal Register at 79 FR 49160 on 

August 19, 2014, and revised the 

information collection OMB 3060–0806 

as approved by OMB are effective 

November 20, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Hone, Wireline Competition Bureau at 

(202) 418–7400 or TTY (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Communications Commission 

has received OMB approval for the 

changes to E-rate rules contained in 

information collection OMB Control No: 

3060–0806; Description of Services 

Requested and Certification; Description 

of Services Requested and Certification 

Instructions; Services Ordered and 

Certification; Services Ordered and 

Certification Instructions (FCC Form 

470 and Instructions; FCC Form 471 and 

Instructions). The information 

collection was revised in the Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in WC Docket 13–184 

which appears at 79 FR 49160, August 

19, 2014. The rules adopted in the 

Report and Order that contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements were not to become 

effective until approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. Through this 

document, the Commission announces 

that it has received this approval (OMB 

Control No: 3060–0806, Expiration Date 

April 30, 2015) and that §§ 54.502(b)(3) 

and (5), 54.504(a), and 54.516(a) through 

(c) are effective November 20, 2014. 

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provisions of law, no person shall be 

subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with the collection of 

information subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act that does not display a 

valid control number. Questions 

concerning the OMB control numbers 

and expiration dates should be directed 

to Leslie F. Smith, Federal 

Communications Commission, (202) 

418–0217 or via the Internet at 

Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27462 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 13–2003; MB Docket No. 11–167; RM– 

11645] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Altamont, Oregon 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of Threshold Communications, 

substitutes FM Channel 235C1 for 

Channel 249C1 at Altamont, Oregon. 

Channel 235C1 can be allotted at 

Altamont in compliance with the 

Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 20 km (12.6 miles) 

northeast of Altamont, at 42–08–37 

North Latitude and 121–30–19 West 

Longitude. 

DATES: Effective November 20, 2014, 

and applicable November 11, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau, 

(202) 418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 11–167, 

adopted September 26, 2013, and 

released September 27, 2013. The full 

text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC, 

20554, (800) 378–3160, or via the 

company’s Web site, www.bcpiweb.com. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). The Commission will send a 

copy of this Report and Order in a 

report to be sent to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Nazifa Sawez 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon is amended by 

removing Channel 249C1 at Altamont; 

and by adding Channel 235C1 at 

Altamont. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27529 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES