[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22774-22786]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10347]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0598; FRL-9993-83-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; NC: Revision to I/M Program & Update to
Charlotte Maintenance Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

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 through a letter dated July 25, 2018, through
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division
of Air Quality (DAQ), primarily for the purpose of revising the model
year coverage for vehicles in the 22 counties subject to North
Carolina's expanded inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, which was
previously approved into the SIP, in part, for use as a component of
the State's Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Budget and Allowance
Trading Program. The SIP revision also includes a demonstration that
the requested revision to the vehicle model year coverage will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) or with any other applicable requirement of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In addition, North Carolina's July 25,
2018, SIP revision updates the State's maintenance plan and the
associated motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) used for
transportation conformity, for the North Carolina portion of the
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC 2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance
Area'') to reflect the requested change in the vehicle model year
coverage for the expanded I/M program. EPA has evaluated whether this
SIP revision would interfere with the requirements of the CAA,
including EPA regulations related to statewide NOX emissions
budgets. EPA is proposing to determine that North Carolina's July 25,
2018, SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0598 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 and
Radiation Division (formerly the 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
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is Being Proposed?

    In response to a North Carolina legislative act signed by the
Governor on May 4, 2017, that changed the State's I/M requirements for
the 22 counties subject to the State's expanded I/M program,\1\ DAQ
provided a SIP revision through a letter dated July 25, 2018,\2\
seeking to have several of these changes incorporated into the North
Carolina SIP. Primarily, North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision
makes substantive changes to the applicability section of North
Carolina's SIP-approved expanded I/M program found within 15A North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .1000 (Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Standard).\3\ Specifically, the July 25, 2018, SIP revision
modifies Section .1002 by changing, for applicability purposes, the
vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties subject to the expanded
I/M program from a specific year-based timeframe for coverage (i.e.,
beginning in 1996) to a rolling 20-year timeframe for coverage.\4\ More
precisely, the revision being proposed changes the applicability of the
expanded I/M program to: (i) A vehicle with a model year within 20
years of the current year and older than the three most recent model
years; or (ii) a vehicle with a model year within 20 years of the
current year and has 70,000 miles or more on its odometer. Previously,
the program applied to: (i) A 1996 or later model year vehicle and
older than the three most recent model years; or (ii) a 1996 or later
model year vehicle and has 70,000 miles or more on its odometer. It is
estimated that this proposed change will result in a small increase
(less than one percent) in nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Additionally, the July 25,
2018, SIP revision makes formatting or other minor clarifying changes
to several related SIP-approved I/M sections: .1001 (Purpose), .1003
(Definitions), and .1005 (On-Board Diagnostic Standards).\5\ All of
these proposed changes are discussed more fully in Section III below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under provisions of the State legislation, Session Law 2017-
10, Senate Bill 131, the changes to North Carolina's I/M
requirements for the 22 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 SIP revision. The 22 counties are: Alamance,
Buncombe, Cabarrus, Cumberland, Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Franklin,
Gaston, Guilford, Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, New
Hanover, Onslow, Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan, Union and Wake. See
clarification letter dated August 31, 2018, from North Carolina in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    \2\ EPA received North Carolina's SIP submittal on July 31,
2018.
    \3\ In the table of North Carolina regulations federally-
approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), 15A NCAC 02D is referred
to as ``Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements.''
    \4\ By its terms, Section .1002(d) makes the 22 counties
identified in North Carolina General Statute 143-215.107A subject to
the I/M program's emission control standards. These same 22 counites
are the counties currently subject to North Carolina's SIP-approved
I/M program which was expanded from 9 counties to 48 counties in
2002 (and is referred to as the ``expanded'' I/M program). See 83 FR
48383 (September 25, 2018) (removing 26 of the 48 counties from
North Carolina's SIP-approved expanded I/M program and leaving the
22 counties identified in footnote 1 above as remaining). In
addition, changes to Section .1002 also include language making the
effective date of the change to the vehicle model year coverage
correspond to the effective date set out in North Carolina Session
Law 2017-10 referred to in footnote 1 above (i.e., on the first day
of the month that is 60 days after EPA approves the change into the
SIP).
    \5\ Sections .1006 and .1008 were also readopted without
substantive changes. However, these rules are not in North
Carolina's SIP and North Carolina is not requesting that EPA approve
these rules into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority (14) of the 22 counties impacted by this proposed
rulemaking were included in an expanded I/M program which was approved
into the North Carolina SIP in 2002, for the sole purpose of using
NOX emissions reductions generated by this expanded program
as a component of the State's NOX Budget and Allowance
Trading Program. See 67 FR 66056 (October 30, 2002). The purpose of the
2002 I/M SIP revision was to allow North Carolina to gain credits from
the I/M emissions reductions from the expanded list of counties as part
of its NOX Budget and Allowance Trading Program. See 67 FR
66056. North Carolina's NOX Budget and Allowance Trading
Program was

submitted to EPA for approval in response to EPA's regulation entitled
``Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States
in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing
Regional Transport of Ozone,'' otherwise known as the NOX
SIP Call.
    For the reasons discussed more fully in Section III, below, EPA is
proposing to find that the changes to the vehicle model year coverage
in Section .1002 for the 22 counties subject to North Carolina's SIP-
approved expanded I/M program will not interfere with North Carolina's
obligations under the NOX SIP Call. A number of federal
rules and SIP-approved state regulations promulgated and implemented
subsequent to the 2002 approval of North Carolina's NOX SIP
Call submission have created significant NOX emissions
reductions in North Carolina such that the small increase in
NOX emissions (and the associated small decrease in
emissions reductions credits generated from the counties and available
for use) does not impact the ability of North Carolina to meet its
NOX SIP Call Statewide NOX emissions budget.
North Carolina has provided an analysis which supports this proposed
finding, and which discusses some of these federal rules and SIP-
approved State regulations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 change to the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 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 the change to Section .1002 for vehicle model
year coverage for the expanded I/M program in the 22 counties will not
interfere with North Carolina's attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS
or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Based on this
demonstration, EPA is proposing to find that North Carolina's revised
emissions calculations demonstrate that the change to the expanded I/M
program for the 22 counties will not interfere with State's ability to
attain or maintain any NAAQS. With regard to the related expanded I/M
program provisions at Sections .1001, .1002, and .1003, EPA is
proposing to find that the changes to those Sections are formatting or
clarifying in nature, do not alter the meaning of the Sections, and are
thus approvable.
    Finally, for 7 of the 22 counties in North Carolina's expanded I/M
program, I/M emissions from those counties have been relied on by North
Carolina for maintenance of the ozone NAAQS for the Charlotte 2008
Ozone Maintenance Area. Through the July 25, 2018, SIP revision (the
subject of this proposed rulemaking), North Carolina provides a
maintenance demonstration for the Area that takes into account the
small increase in NOX and VOC emissions estimated to result
from the proposed change to the vehicle model year coverage for the
expanded I/M program for these counties. As discussed more fully in
Sections III d. and e. below, EPA is proposing to find that, after
taking into account these estimated small increases in NOX
and VOC emissions, North Carolina has demonstrated continued
maintenance for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area, and, thus,
EPA is also proposing to approve the changes to the State's maintenance
plan and the associated MVEBs for this Area.

II. What is the background of North Carolina's SIP-approved I/M
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 for
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.\7\ See 60 FR 28720 (June 2,
1995). Subsequently, North Carolina expanded its State I/M program to
cover 39 additional counties in order to use credits from I/M emissions
reductions from these additional counties as a component of the State's
response to EPA's NOX SIP Call.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The nine counties are Cabarrus, Durham, Forsyth, Gaston,
Guilford, Mecklenburg, Orange, Union and Wake. See 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.
    \8\ North Carolina Session Law 1999-328, Section 3.1(d) and
Section 3.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NOX SIP Call was designed to mitigate significant
transport of NOX, one of the precursors of ozone. It
required 19 states (including North Carolina) and the District of
Columbia to meet statewide NOX emissions budgets during the
five-month period from May 1 through September 30, called the ozone
season (or control period). EPA approved the expansion of North
Carolina's SIP-approved I/M in 2002.
    Approval of the I/M revision into the SIP and the amended rules
contained therein allowed North Carolina to gain emissions reduction
credits ranging from 914 tons in 2004 to 4,385 tons in 2007 and beyond
for use in its NOX emissions budget. These emissions
reduction credits were used by the State at the beginning of the
NOX emissions budget program to allow for new growth and to
help meet the overall budget cap until the affected stationary sources
could install and operate controls needed to meet their emissions
allowances. See 67 FR 66056. For example, while these credits were
primarily used to allow for new growth during initial program
implementation, a small portion of the credits (approximately 1,000
tons per ozone season) were also initially used by North Carolina to
help meet the Statewide NOX emissions budget of 165,022 tons
per ozone season.\9\ See 67 FR 66056; 67 FR 42519, 42522 (June 24,
2002). EPA approved the expanded I/M program into the SIP on October
30, 2002 (67 FR 66056), and approved North Carolina's NOX
SIP Call submittal (i.e., the North Carolina NOX Budget and
Allowance Trading Program) on December 27, 2002. See 67 FR 78987.
Subsequently, on September 15, 2018, EPA finalized a rulemaking which
approved a SIP revision removing 26 counties from North Carolina's SIP-
approved expanded I/M program.\10\ See 83 FR 48383. The result of EPA's
2018 final rulemaking is that 22 counties now remain subject to North
Carolina's SIP-approved expanded I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ North Carolina's Statewide NOX emissions budget
is found at 40 CFR 51.121(g)(2)(ii).
    \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 July 25, 2018, SIP
revision?

A. Changes for Sections .1001, .1003, and .1005

    As mentioned above, North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision
makes formatting or other minor clarifying changes to several related
SIP-approved I/M sections: .1001 (Purpose), .1003 (Definitions), and
.1005 (On-Board Diagnostic Standards). Below is a summary of these
changes.
     .1001--Purpose: Changes are formatting in nature.
Specifically, North Carolina changes ``inspection/maintenance'' to
``inspection and maintenance'', and also changes ``law'' to ``law.''

     .1003--Definitions: Changes are formatting in nature.
Specifically, North Carolina changes ``Rules'' to ``15A NCAC 2D'' and
removes ``of the Section'' in two places. North Carolina also changes
``Three'' to ``three''.
     .1005--On-Board Diagnostic Standards: Changes are
formatting in nature or minor clarifications that do not alter the
meaning or effect of the rule. Specifically, North Carolina changes
``Rules'' to ``15A NCAC 2D'' and removes ``of the Section'' in one
place. North Carolina also clarifies paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
rule without making substantive changes. In summary, North Carolina
changes paragraph (d) to read ``Persons performing on-board diagnostics
tests shall provide the Division of Air Quality the data required by 40
CFR 51.365, Data Collection; 40 CFR 51.366, Data Analysis and
Reporting; and 40 CFR 51.358 Test Equipment.'' from ``Persons
performing on-board diagnostic tests shall provide the Division of Air
Quality data necessary to determine the effectiveness of the on-board
diagnostic testing program. The data submitted shall be what is
necessary to satisfy 51.358, Test Equipment.'' Paragraph (e) is changed
from ``All reference to federal regulations include subsequent
amendments and editions.'' to ``Federal regulations cited in this Rule
are incorporated by reference, including subsequent amendments and
editions.''
    EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to Sections
.1001, .1003, and .1005 because they are formatting in nature or are
minor clarifications that do not change the meaning or effect of these
rules.

B. Impact of Section .1002 Changes on the State's NOX SIP
Call Obligations

    For Section .1002, North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision
seeks to change the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties
subject to the North Carolina I/M program requirements contained in the
SIP. North Carolina estimates that this change to the vehicle model
year coverage will increase NOX emissions from the 22
counties by 311 tons per ozone season (See Table 2 below). As noted
previously, a subset of the 22 counties (14 counties) were included in
the expanded I/M program in order to generate emissions reduction
credits for NOX, a small part of which were initially used
by the State to meet its Statewide NOX emissions budget.
Consequently, some portion of the 311 tons/ozone season NOX
emissions increase necessarily results in fewer emissions reductions
credit generated and available for use by the State to meet its
Statewide NOX emissions budget. However, while fewer
emissions reduction credits from the expanded I/M program may be
available to North Carolina as a result of the small NOX
emissions increase, EPA is proposing to find that any decrease in
available emissions reductions credits from the expanded I/M program
will not interfere with the State's obligation under the NOX
SIP Call with regards to meeting its Statewide NOX emissions
budget. As discussed more fully below, EPA believes this is because,
since 2002, significant NOX emissions reductions have
otherwise been achieved in North Carolina from implementation of
several federal and SIP-approved regulations. For purposes of meeting
its Statewide NOX emissions budget, these significant
NOX emissions reductions more than offset any small decrease
in available emissions reduction credits due to the change to the
vehicle model year coverage.
    Subsequent to the NOX SIP Call and the 2002 approval of
North Carolina's NOX Budget and Allowance Trading Program, a
number of federal rules, as well as SIP-approved state regulations have
created significant NOX emissions reductions in North
Carolina (including ozone season reductions). For stationary sources,
including large electricity generating units (EGUs), these federal
rules include the Clean Air Interstate Rule (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 NOX emissions over time due to fleet
turnover (i.e., the replacement of older vehicles that predate the
standards with newer vehicles that meet the standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states,
including North Carolina, that contributed to downwind nonattainment
or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the
1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. CAIR was
challenged in federal court and in 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to
EPA without vacatur. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3rd 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \12\ In response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR. CSAPR requires 28 eastern states,
including North Carolina, to limit their statewide emissions of
SO2 and NOX in order to mitigate transported
air pollution impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain
four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of
maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2
and NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each
covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented
in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with Phase I
budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2
budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. CSAPR was
challenged in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 12, 2012, it was
vacated and remanded to EPA. The vacatur was subsequently reversed
by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014). This litigation
ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years.
    \13\ The Tier 2 standards, begun in 2004, continue to
significantly reduce NOX emissions and EPA expects that
these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles
by approximately 74 percent by 2030 (or nearly 3 million tons
annually by 2030). See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015) (citing
EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA 420-F-99-051 (December 1999)).
    \14\ Also begun in 2004, implementation of this rule is expected
to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from
diesel trucks and buses by 2030. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28,
2015).
    \15\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, North Carolina also enacted and subsequently implemented
its Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which created system-wide annual
emissions caps on actual emissions of NOX and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from coal-fired power plants within the State, the
first of which became effective in 2007. The CSA required certain coal-
fired power plants in North Carolina to significantly reduce annual
NOX emissions by 189,000 tons (or 77 percent) by 2009 (using
a 1998 baseline year). This represented about a one-third reduction of
the NOX emissions from all sources in North Carolina. See 76
FR 36468, 36470 (June 11, 2011).\16\ With the requirement to meet
annual emissions caps and disallowing the purchase of NOX
credits to meet the caps, the CSA reduced NOX emissions
beyond the requirements of the NOX SIP Call even though the
Act did not limit emissions only during the ozone season. EPA approved
the CSA into North Carolina's SIP on September 26, 2011 (76 FR 59250).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ North Carolina indicates that the utilities have reduced
NOX emissions by 83 percent relative to the 1998
emissions levels. See Letter from Michael A. Abraczinskas, Director
of the Division of Air Quality for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, dated July 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, implementation of these federal rules and SIP-approved
State regulations have created significant NOX emissions
reductions since North Carolina's NOX emissions budget was
approved into the SIP in 2002, and for EGUs, have significantly reduced
ozone season NOX emissions well below the original
NOX SIP Call budget. This last point is illustrated in Table
1, which

compares the EGU NOX SIP Call budget to actual emissions in
2007 and 2017. Actual EGU emissions in 2007 and 2017 were 23 percent
(7,274 tons) and 60 percent (18,906 tons) below the NOX SIP
Call budget for EGUs, respectively. Notably, the entirety of the
emissions reduction credits from the I/M program (and used by the State
in its NOX emissions budget) only totaled 4,385 tons, of
which approximately 1,000 tons was initially needed to meet the overall
budget.

    Table 1--Comparison of Ozone Season NOX SIP Call Budget to Actual
                           Emissions for EGUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2017     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SIP Call Budget, Tons \17\........................   31,451   31,451
Actual Emissions, Tons................................   24,177   12,545
Below Budget, Tons....................................    7,274   18,906
Below Budget, Percent.................................       23       60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 compares the impact of the estimated ozone season
NOX emissions increases due to the proposed change to the
vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties on EGU reductions and
NOX SIP Call I/M reduction credits. Using EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014), DAQ estimated that changes to
the vehicle model year coverage in the 22 counties will increase ozone
season NOX emissions by 311 tons. As noted above, in 2017,
EGU emissions were 18,906 tons (60 percent) below the NOX
SIP Call budget for EGUs. The estimated 311 tons NOX
increase from the proposed change to the vehicle model year coverage in
the 22 counties combined with the estimated 611 tons increase in
NOX emissions from the removal of 26 counties from the
expanded I/M program (which EPA previously approved in a separate
action published on September 25, 2018) would lower the EGU reduction
by less than 5 percent to 17,984 tons below the NOX SIP Call
budget for EGUs. Thus, based on this EGU-focused analysis, DAQ
concludes that the small ozone season NOX emissions increase
associated with the proposed change to the vehicle model year coverage
in the 22 counties subject to North Carolina's expanded I/M program has
no impact on North Carolina's obligations under the NOX SIP
Call to meet its Statewide NOX emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ From EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's
NOX SIP Call submission. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24, 2002).

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NOX
            I/M emissions increase in 2018, tons               emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering the above, EPA is proposing to find that North
Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision to change the vehicle model year
coverage for the 22 counties subject to the expanded I/M program
contained in its SIP (which results in a small increase in
NOX emissions and consequentially a small decrease in the
amount of emissions reduction credits generated and available for use
in the State's NOX emissions budget) will not interfere with
the State's obligations under the NOX SIP Call to meet its
Statewide NOX emissions budget. Subsequent promulgation and
implementation of a number of federal rules and SIP-approved state
regulations, and in particular those impacting EGUs, have created
significant NOX emissions reductions in the State that are
more than sufficient, for purposes of meeting the Statewide
NOX emissions budget, to offset this small decrease in
available emissions reduction credits.

C. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding North Carolina's
Noninterference Analyses

    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA evaluates section 110(l)
noninterference 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 NAAQS in a noninterference
demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions
associated with the proposed SIP revision. For I/M SIP revisions, the
most relevant pollutants to consider are ozone precursors (i.e., NOx
and VOC) and carbon monoxide (CO). In connection with North Carolina's
July 25, 2018, SIP revision, the State submitted a non-interference
demonstration which EPA analyzes below.
    As mentioned above, in a letter dated July 25, 2018, DAQ submitted
a noninterference demonstration to support the State's request to
change the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties subject to
the expanded I/M program to: (i) a vehicle with a model year within 20
years of the current year and older than the three most recent model
years; or (ii) a vehicle with a model year within 20 years of the
current year and has 70,000 miles or more on its odometer. This
demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact that this change
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 the change in vehicle model year coverage in the 22 counties
subject to the North Carolina 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA also notes, as a transport-related matter, that on
October 26, 2016, the Agency determined through the CSAPR Update
(see 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. Noninterference 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 8-hour
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 in attainment statewide for all of the
ozone NAAQS.\19\ Most recently, 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. With regard to the I/M SIP
revision, thirteen of the 22 counties where vehicle model year coverage
is being revised have ozone monitors. The monitors reflect design
values in part per billion (ppb) that meet or are below the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb (see Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Charlotte Area was redesignated to attainment for the
1-hour ozone standard on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34859); redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on December 2, 2013
(78 FR 72036); and was designated to attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard on July 28, 2015 (80 FR 44873). In addition, on
December 26, 2007, EPA approved the redesignation to attainment of
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area (comprised of a portion of
Chatham County, and the entire counties of Durham, Franklin,
Johnston, Orange, Person, and Wake) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. See 72 FR 72948. This approval included approval of a 10-
year maintenance plan which demonstrated that the Area would
maintain the standard through the year 2017. The Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Area has continued to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and subsequently was designated as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard on December 26, 2007
(72 FR 72948) and attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour
ozone standard on November 16, 2017 (82 FR 54232). Further, counties
in the Raleigh Area and Greensboro Area were redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard on April 18, 1994 (59 FR
18300) and on September 9, 1993 (58 FR 47391), respectively. With
regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the Great Smoky National
Park Area was redesignated to attainment on December 7, 2009 (74 FR
63995), and the Rocky Mount Area was redesignated to attainment on
November 6, 2006 (71 FR 64891).

         Table 3--Design Values for Counties with Ozone Monitors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Ozone Design Value, ppb (2015
     Counties Subject to I/M Program        8-hr ozone NAAQS is 70 ppb)
   Requirement and Vehicle MY Coverage   -------------------------------
     Change That Have Ozone Monitors         2014-2016       2015-2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buncombe................................              63              62
Durham..................................              62              61
Forsyth.................................              68              67
Guilford................................              65              65
Johnston................................              65              63
Lee.....................................              62              61
Lincoln.................................              67              67
Mecklenburg.............................              70              70
New Hanover.............................              60              58
Rockingham..............................              66              65
Rowan...................................              65              64
Union...................................              68              67
Wake....................................              65              66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DAQ's noninterference analysis compared ozone season day
anthropogenic NOx and VOC emissions for all sectors (point, area,
nonroad, on road) for 2018 for the 22 counties subject to North
Carolina's expanded I/M program and compared them to the emissions for
all sectors because of the changing of the vehicle model year coverage.
As mentioned above, the vehicle model year coverage for the expanded I/
M program is currently: (i) A 1996 or later model year vehicle and
older than the three most recent model years; or (ii) a 1996 or later
model year vehicle and has an odometer reading of 70,000 miles or more.
The proposed vehicle model year coverage for the expanded I/M program
is: (i) A vehicle with a model year within 20 years of the current year
and older than the three most recent model years; or (ii) a vehicle
with a model year within 20 years of the current year and has an
odometer reading of 70,000 miles or more. For purposes of Tables 4 and
5, the columns titled ``I/M'', reflect the current vehicle model year
coverage as defined above, and the columns titled ``New I/M'', reflect
the proposed revision to the vehicle model year coverage as defined
above.
    DAQ's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's MOVES2014 emission
modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile sources. For 2018, the
NOx emissions increase resulting from the North Carolina expanded I/M
program will be 0.24 tons per day (tpd) or less in each of the 22
counties for which the vehicle model year coverage is being changed. As
summarized in Tables 4 and 5, below, the MOVES model predicted emission
increases for only on-road vehicles. The results for 2018 show a slight
increase in anthropogenic NOx emissions for each county, as shown in
Table 4, ranging from 0.02 to 0.24 tpd. The percent increase in total
NOx emissions for a county ranges from 0.3 percent to 1.5 percent. The
total increase in NOx emissions associated with the vehicle model year
coverage change in 2018 for the 22 counties subject to this change is
2.02 tpd \20\ or 0.94 percent of total man-made emissions (260.95 tpd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 2.02 tpd multiplied by 154 days in the ozone season equals
311 tons per ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, DAQ's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's
MOVES2014 emission modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile
sources. The year 2018 was modeled as the future year. The compliance
rate for the expanded I/M program in North Carolina was 96 percent with
a 5 percent waiver rate. These mobile source emissions are used as part
of the evaluation of the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might
result exclusively from changing the vehicle model year coverage for
the 22 counties subject to the North Carolina expanded I/M program.

                                                               Table 4--Total Anthropogenic NOX Emissions for 2018 for 22 Counties
                                                                                [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               On-road                    Non-road                Point                 Area                            Totals
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Counties                                             Emission                                                                                Emissions   Percent
                                                      I/M        New      increase     I/M      New I/M      I/M      New I/M      I/M      New I/M      I/M      New I/M    increase   increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamance.........................................       3.69       3.77       0.08       1.09       1.09       0.45       0.45       0.59       0.59       5.82       5.90       0.08        1.4
Buncombe.........................................       5.54       5.65       0.11       1.71       1.71       4.01       4.01       1.47       1.47      12.73      12.84       0.11        0.9
Cabarrus.........................................       3.75       3.82       0.07       1.48       1.48       0.85       0.85       0.45       0.45       6.53       6.60       0.07        1.1
Cumberland.......................................       5.45       5.55       0.10       2.69       2.69       1.08       1.08       0.61       0.61       9.83       9.93       0.10        1.0
Davidson.........................................       4.12       4.21       0.09       1.52       1.52       3.28       3.28       0.41       0.41       9.33       9.42       0.09        1.0
Durham...........................................       4.69       4.79       0.10       2.39       2.39       0.87       0.87       1.02       1.02       8.97       9.07       0.10        1.1
Forsyth..........................................       5.68       5.80       0.12       2.03       2.03       1.96       1.96       1.20       1.20      10.87      10.99       0.12        1.1
Franklin.........................................       1.33       1.36       0.03       0.36       0.36       0.08       0.08       0.21       0.21       1.98       2.01       0.03        1.5
Gaston...........................................       4.63       4.72       0.09       1.49       1.49      25.13      25.13       0.58       0.58      31.83      31.92       0.09        0.3
Guilford.........................................       8.43       8.60       0.17       4.95       4.95       1.79       1.79       2.12       2.12      17.29      17.46       0.17        1.0
Iredell..........................................       5.09       5.17       0.08       1.35       1.35       5.44       5.44       0.58       0.58      12.46      12.54       0.08        0.6
Johnston.........................................       6.37       6.45       0.08       2.09       2.09       0.32       0.32       0.47       0.47       9.25       9.33       0.08        0.9
Lee..............................................       1.29       1.31       0.02       0.59       0.59       0.18       0.18       0.18       0.18       2.24       2.26       0.02        0.9
Lincoln..........................................       1.98       2.02       0.04       0.65       0.65       0.67       0.67       0.18       0.18       3.48       3.52       0.04        1.1
Mecklenburg......................................      13.40      13.64       0.24       9.92       9.92       9.25       9.25       5.37       5.37      37.94      38.18       0.24        0.6
New Hanover......................................       2.44       2.49       0.05       3.47       3.47       3.76       3.76       0.70       0.70      10.37      10.42       0.05        0.8
Onslow...........................................       2.78       2.83       0.05       0.96       0.96       1.54       1.54       0.76       0.76       6.04       6.09       0.05        0.8
Randolph.........................................       3.92       4.00       0.08       0.91       0.91       0.17       0.17       0.41       0.41       5.41       5.49       0.08        1.5
Rockingham.......................................       2.60       2.67       0.07       0.89       0.89       7.71       7.71       0.31       0.31      11.51      11.58       0.07        0.6
Rowan............................................       3.68       3.76       0.08       1.29       1.29       5.94       5.94       0.43       0.43      11.34      11.42       0.08        0.7
Union............................................       3.62       3.69       0.07       2.70       2.70       0.34       0.34       0.57       0.57       7.23       7.30       0.07        1.0
Wake.............................................      12.39      12.59       0.20       7.15       7.15       2.89       2.89       4.02       4.02      26.45      26.65       0.20        0.8
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................     106.87     108.89       2.02      51.68      51.68      77.71      77.71      22.64      22.64      258.9     260.92       2.02       0.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                               Table 5--Total Anthropogenic VOC Emissions for 2018 for 22 Counties
                                                                                [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               On-road                    Non-road                Point                 Area                            Totals
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Counties                                             Emission                                                                                Emissions   Percent
                                                      I/M        New      increase     I/M      New I/M      I/M      New I/M      I/M      New I/M      I/M      New I/M    increase   increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamance.........................................       2.60       2.66       0.06       1.37       1.37       1.41       1.41       4.76       4.76      10.14      10.20       0.06        0.6
Buncombe.........................................       3.92       4.01       0.09       2.95       2.95       1.49       1.49       8.07       8.07      16.43      16.52       0.09        0.5
Cabarrus.........................................       2.74       2.80       0.06       1.14       1.14       0.74       0.74       4.58       4.58       9.20       9.26       0.06        0.7
Cumberland.......................................       3.90       3.98       0.08       1.98       1.98       2.24       2.24       6.97       6.97      15.09      15.17       0.08        0.5
Davidson.........................................       3.05       3.12       0.07       0.98       0.98       1.29       1.29       5.74       5.74      11.06      11.13       0.07        0.6
Durham...........................................       3.24       3.31       0.07       2.03       2.03       0.43       0.43       6.95       6.95      12.65      12.72       0.07        0.6
Forsyth..........................................       4.44       4.54       0.10       2.02       2.02       4.01       4.01       9.05       9.05      19.52      19.62       0.10        0.5
Franklin.........................................       1.01       1.04       0.03       0.35       0.35       0.18       0.18       2.00       2.00       3.54       3.57       0.03        0.8
Gaston...........................................       3.20       3.28       0.08       1.18       1.18       1.45       1.45       5.89       5.89      11.72      11.80       0.08        0.7
Guilford.........................................       6.14       6.28       0.14       4.54       4.54       7.42       7.42      15.96      15.96      34.06      34.20       0.14        0.4
Iredell..........................................       3.11       3.17       0.06       1.10       1.10       1.76       1.76       5.66       5.66      11.63      11.69       0.06        0.5
Johnston.........................................       3.08       3.14       0.06       1.27       1.27       1.45       1.45       5.88       5.88      11.68      11.74       0.06        0.5
Lee..............................................       0.98       1.00       0.02       0.36       0.36       1.29       1.29       1.96       1.96       4.59       4.61       0.02        0.4
Lincoln..........................................       1.51       1.54       0.03       0.57       0.57       1.22       1.22       2.29       2.29       5.59       5.62       0.03        0.5
Mecklenburg......................................       9.90      10.07       0.17      10.52      10.52       1.83       1.83      22.69      22.69      44.94      45.11       0.17        0.4
New Hanover......................................       2.21       2.25       0.04       2.10       2.10       1.10       1.10       6.15       6.15      11.56      11.60       0.04        0.3
Onslow...........................................       2.04       2.08       0.04       1.83       1.83       0.70       0.70       4.69       4.69       9.26       9.30       0.04        0.4
Randolph.........................................       2.74       2.81       0.07       0.97       0.97       1.58       1.58       7.10       7.10      12.39      12.46       0.07        0.6
Rockingham.......................................       1.94       1.99       0.05       0.75       0.75       2.20       2.20       4.71       4.71       9.60       9.65       0.05        0.5
Rowan............................................       2.63       2.69       0.06       1.10       1.10       5.48       5.48       3.91       3.91      13.12      13.18       0.06        0.5
Union............................................       2.78       2.83       0.05       2.13       2.13       1.03       1.03       6.35       6.35      12.29      12.34       0.05        0.4
Wake.............................................       9.66       9.81       0.15       7.66       7.66       1.94       1.94      22.27      22.27      41.53      41.68       0.15        0.4
                                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................      76.82       78.4       1.58       48.9       48.9      42.24      42.24     163.63     163.63     331.59     333.17       1.58        0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results in Table 5 show that changing the vehicle model year
coverage for the 22 counties subject to the expanded I/M program
increases anthropogenic VOC emissions for only on-road vehicles ranging
from 0.02 tpd to 0.17 tpd. The percent increase in total VOC emissions
for each county ranges from 0.3 percent to 0.8 percent. The total
increase in VOC emissions associated with changing the vehicle model
year coverage for the expanded I/M program in the year 2018 is
approximately 1.6 tpd or 0.5 percent of the total man-made emissions
(333 tpd).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ When biogenic VOC emissions from natural sources (average
of 1,973 tpd during July using EPA's 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI v2)) are added to the man-made emissions (333 tpd),
the actual VOC emissions increase is only 0.07 percent (1.6/2,305
tpd x 100). This is a very small change that EPA believes will not
translate into measurable ground-level ozone concentrations in North
Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 6 below, total NOX and VOC emissions
would increase 2.0

tpd (0.8 percent) and 1.6 tpd (0.5 percent), respectively.

 Table 6--Summary of On-Road NOX and VOC Emissions Increases Associated With Changing Vehicle MY Coverage in 22
                                       Counties Subject to the I/M Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX emissions
                                                                                in 2018       VOC emissions
                                                                                in 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total On-Road Emissions with Current I/M Program (tpd)........................            106.9             76.8
Total On-Road Emissions with Revised I/M Program (tpd)........................            108.9             78.4
Emissions Increases (tpd).....................................................              2.0              1.6
Percent Increase: On-road only................................................              1.9              2.1
Percent Increase: Total anthropogenic.........................................              0.8              0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's emissions analysis, as reflected in Tables 4, 5,
and 6, above, indicate that only a very small increase in
NOX and VOC emissions (less than one percent overall) is
associated with changing the vehicle model year coverage for the 22
counties subject to the expanded I/M program. Based on this, as well as
the design values shown in Table 3, above, and EPA's further analysis
specific to ozone in relation to the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance
Area as described in section d below, EPA is proposing to find that
changing the vehicle model year coverage from a specific year-based
date (1996) to a rolling 20-year timeframe for the 22 counties subject
to the North Carolina expanded I/M program requirements would not
interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the State.
ii. Noninterference Analysis for the PM NAAQS
    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the
PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On September
21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\ but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
    EPA promulgated designations for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), and April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844).
Of the 22 counties subject to this rulemaking, Catawba, Davidson and
Guilford counties were designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. These areas have since been redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and continue to
attain this NAAQS. See 76 FR 71452 and 76 FR 71455 (November 18, 2011).
On November 13, 2009, and on January 15, 2015, EPA published notices
determining that the entire state of North Carolina was unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2006 daily PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. See 71 FR 61144 and 78 FR
3086.
    In North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision, the State
concluded that the changes to the vehicle model year coverage for the
22 counites in North Carolina's expanded I/M program would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
The pollution control systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject
to the expanded I/M program are not designed to reduce emissions for
PM2.5; therefore, changing the I/M requirements will not
have any impact on ambient concentrations of PM2.5. In
addition, MOVES2014 modeling results indicate that changing the vehicle
model year coverage for the expanded I/M program would not increase
direct PM2.5 emissions. EPA has evaluated the State's
analysis and proposes to find that the changes to the vehicle model
year coverage for the 22 counites in North Carolina's expanded I/M
program would not interfere with maintenance of the PM2.5
NAAQS in the State.
iii. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    The 2010 NO2 1-hour standard is set at 100 ppb, based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The annual standard of 53 ppb is
based on the annual mean concentration. On February 17, 2012, EPA
designated all counties in North Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532.
    Based on the technical analysis in North Carolina's July 25, 2018,
SIP revision, the projected increase in total anthropogenic
NOX emissions (of which NO2 is a component)
associated with the changes to the vehicle model year coverage for the
22 counites in North Carolina's expanded I/M program ranges from 0.08
to 0.25 tpd in 2018. All NO2 monitors in the State are
measuring below the annual NO2 standard, and all near road
monitors are measuring well below the 1-hour NO2 standard.
Given the current unclassifiable/attainment designation and the results
of North Carolina's emissions analysis which show a de minimis increase
in NOX, EPA proposes to find that the changes to the vehicle
model year coverage for the 22 counites in North Carolina's expanded I/
M program would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in the State.
iv. Noninterference Analysis for the CO NAAQS
    EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 1971 and has retained the standards
since its last review 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. Eighteen of the 22 counties in North Carolina's
expanded I/M program have never been designated nonattainment for the
CO NAAQS. Durham, Forsyth, Mecklenburg and Wake counties were all
previously designed nonattainment for the CO NAAQS over 20 years ago
and have since been redesignated to attainment. Currently, there are
two monitors in North Carolina for CO. These monitors are in
Mecklenburg and Wake Counties and reflect design values well below both
the 8-hour and 1-hour CO NAAQS. The monitoring data in 2017 show an 8-

hour design value of 1.3 ppm for the Charlotte Area and 1.2 ppm for the
Raleigh-Durham Area--each less than the 9.0 ppm CO NAAQS. For the 1-
hour CO NAAQS of 35 ppm, these two monitors have a 1-hour design value
of 1.5 ppm for the Charlotte Area and 1.6 ppm for Raleigh-Durham Area
in 2017.
    In North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision, the State
concluded that the changes to the vehicle model year coverage for the
22 counites in North Carolina's 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 22 counties ranging from 0.21 tpd in Franklin
County to 1.85 tpd in Mecklenburg County in 2018. Statewide, the
current ambient air quality levels for CO are less than 20 percent of
the CO NAAQS. Given how far below the monitoring results are relative
to the CO standard, and North Carolina's sustained compliance with the
CO NAAQS, EPA does not believe that these slight increases would cause
any area in the State to violate the CO NAAQS. For these reasons, EPA
proposes to find that the changes to the vehicle model year coverage
for the 22 counties in North Carolina's expanded I/M program would not
interfere with maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the State.
v. Noninterference Analysis for the SO2 NAAQS
    On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to 75
ppb which became effective on August 23, 2010. See 75 FR 35520. On
August 5, 2013, EPA initially designated nonattainment only in areas
with violating 2009-2011 monitoring data. EPA did not designate any
county in North Carolina for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as
part of the initial designation. See 78 FR 47191. On March 2, 2015, a
Consent Decree was issued by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California stipulating the time and method for
designating the remaining areas in the Country.\22\ For North Carolina,
EPA designated the entire state attainment/unclassifiable for
SO2 (pursuant to a consent decree) on December 21, 2017
(effective April 9, 2018 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-01-09/pdf/2017-28423.pdf), except for the following townships/counties:
Beaverdam Township (Haywood County); Limestone Township (Buncombe
County); and Cunningham Township (Person County). Counties listed above
deployed monitors which EPA intends to designate by December 2020.
Also, a portion of Brunswick County was designated unclassifiable
effective in August 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Copy of the Consent Decree--http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/pdfs/201503FinalCourtOrder.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the technical analysis in North Carolina's July 25, 2018,
SIP revision, the State concluded that the changes to the vehicle model
year coverage for the 22 counites in North Carolina's expanded I/M
program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS. The pollution control systems for light-duty
gasoline vehicles subject to the expanded I/M program are not designed
to reduce emissions for SO2; therefore, changing the vehicle
model year coverage for the 22 counties in North Carolina's expanded I/
M program will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of
SO2. In addition, sulfur content in fuel has been
significantly decreased through EPA's Tier 2 and Tier 3 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 the
changes to the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counites in North
Carolina's expanded I/M program would not increase SO2
emissions. For these reasons, EPA proposes to find that the changes to
the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counites in North Carolina's
expanded I/M program would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the State.
vi. Noninterference 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, changing the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties
in North Carolina's expanded I/M program will not have any impact on
ambient concentrations of lead. MOVES 2014 modeling results indicate
that this change would not increase lead emissions. For these reasons,
EPA proposes to find that the changes to the vehicle model year
coverage for the 22 counites in North Carolina's expanded I/M program
would not interfere with maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the
State.

D. Revision to the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan for the
North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area

    In its July 25, 2018, SIP revision, North Carolina updated the
mobile emissions for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area's plan,
including the MVEBs, to reflect the change to the vehicle model year
coverage in North Carolina's expanded I/M program. The emissions
inventory updates were done using the latest planning assumptions and
are detailed on pages 31-42 of the State's submittal titled ``Revised
Maintenance Plan for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, North Carolina
2008 8-Hour Ozone Marginal Nonattainment Area,'' dated July 25, 2018,
which is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    North Carolina revised the emissions forecasts and the MVEBs for
2026 to account for the small increase in NOX and VOC
emissions associated with the change in vehicle model year coverage for
the relevant counties in North Carolina's expanded I/M program. The
total sum of the man-made VOC and NOX emissions for the
North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area are
shown in Tables 7 and 8. Maintenance is demonstrated when the emissions
are less than the baseline year. The baseline year is 2014. As shown in
Table 7, for NOX, all the years are under the baseline of
130.18 tons per summer day (tpsd), with the final year of 2026
emissions at 60.28 tpsd. Additionally, as shown in Table 8, for VOC,
all years are under the baseline of 113.12 tpsd, with the final year of
2026 emissions at 95.99 tpsd.

       Table 7--Total Man-Made NOX Emissions for North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Maintenance Area
                                                     [tpsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             County                    2014            2015            2018            2022            2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus........................           11.49           10.73            6.73            5.44            4.44
Gaston..........................           27.89           27.62           12.03            6.41            7.87
Iredell.........................            6.86            6.49            5.41            4.68            4.16
Lincoln.........................            4.36            4.71            6.41            4.29            2.34
Mecklenburg.....................           56.71           52.97           39.16           33.52           31.33
Rowan...........................           11.74           11.31            8.28            7.01            6.10
Union...........................           11.13           10.36            6.63            5.09            4.05
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          130.18          124.19           84.69           66.44           60.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Table 8--Total Man-Made VOC Emissions for North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte Maintenance Area
                                                     [tpsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             County                    2014            2015            2018            2022            2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus........................           11.50           11.27            9.51            9.23            9.02
Gaston..........................           12.96           12.74           11.53           10.94           10.74
Iredell.........................            6.33            6.22            5.29            5.11            4.97
Lincoln.........................            6.55            6.47            4.81            4.66            4.51
Mecklenburg.....................           50.10           49.16           45.31           44.47           31.33
Rowan...........................           12.59           12.38           12.47           12.19            6.10
Union...........................           13.09           12.85           10.91           10.68            4.05
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          113.12          111.09           99.82           97.28           95.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the updated emissions for the 2008 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion of the
Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area because it demonstrates that the
projected emissions inventories for 2026 (the final year of the
maintenance plan), 10 years beyond the re-designation year, as well as
the interim years, are all less than the base year emissions inventory.

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    As stated above, North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP revision also
changed the MVEBs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the North
Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area for
transportation conformity purposes.\23\ North Carolina originally
established MVEBs for the North Carolina portion of the Charlotte 2008
Ozone Maintenance Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in its
redesignation and maintenance SIP. EPA approved these MVEBs on July 28,
2015 (effective date August 27, 2015). See 80 FR 44873. Subsequently,
North Carolina updated the emissions projections in North Carolina's
maintenance plan for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area and
updated the MVEBs as well to account for the State's request for
changes to the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for the Area. On
July 28, 2015, EPA approved this revision to the maintenance plan and
the MVEBs. See 80 FR 44868. North Carolina's July 25, 2018, SIP
revision updates the Charlotte 2008 8-hour ozone maintenance plan to
account for the change in the vehicle model year coverage for the
relevant counties in the expanded I/M program, and consequently updates
the MVEBs for transportation conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Federal Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.100-
129) provides the process by which the air quality impact of
transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and
projects are analyzed. The agency preparing transportation plans
(projections of twenty or more years), transportation improvement
programs (TIP) (projections of at least four years), or approving a
transportation project must analyze the emissions expected from such
a proposal in accordance with the Transportation Conformity Rule.
For the purposes of transportation conformity, the MVEB is
essentially a cap on the total emissions allocated to on-road
vehicles. The projected regional emissions calculated based on a
transportation plan, TIP, or project, may not exceed the MVEBs or
cap contained in the appropriate SIP. Emissions in years for which
no MVEBs are specifically established must be less than or equal to
the MVEB established for the most recent prior year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs in North Carolina
are expressed in kilograms per summer day (kpsd). This is because the
kpsd is used as the specific unit for all MOVES2014 model outputs. The
emission values in kpsd were divided by 907.1847 to convert them to
units of tpsd. Table 9 shows the highway mobile NOX and VOC
summer day emissions for the counties in the Charlotte 2008 Ozone
Maintenance Area expressed in tpsd and the corresponding kpsd values
for the base year 2014 and the last year of the maintenance plan 2026.
Table 10 shows the maintenance level projections and the calculation of
the safety margin for the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area.

       Table 9--Highway Mobile Source NOX and VOC Summer Day Emissions for North Carolina Portion of 2008 8-Hour Ozone Charlotte Maintenance Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2014 NOX                  2014 VOC                  2026 NOX                  2026 VOC
                     County                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      tpsd         kgsd         tpsd         kgsd         tpsd         kgsd         tpsd         kgsd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabarrus........................................         6.60        5,989         4.15        3,765         2.00        1,810         2.19        1,982
Gaston..........................................         8.11        7,357         4.61        4,179         2.12        1,924         1.86        1,689

Iredell.........................................         3.36        3,045         1.95        1,768         1.00          903         0.88          801
Lincoln.........................................         3.00        2,723         1.91        1,737         0.83          757         0.86          779
Mecklenburg.....................................        26.99       24,488        14.40       13,060         7.17        6,501         6.98        6,334
Rowan...........................................         6.42        5,825         3.76        3,408         1.73        1,571         1.53        1,389
Union...........................................         5.67        5,146         3.54        3,210         1.62        1,466         1.68        1,520
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................        60.15       54,572        34.32       31,127        16.47       14,932        15.98       14,492
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 10--Maintenance Demonstration for North Carolina Portion of the
                             Charlotte Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  NOX (tpsd)
                      Year                                    VOC (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................................      130.18      113.12
2015............................................      124.19      111.09
2018............................................       84.69       99.82
2022............................................       66.44       97.28
2026............................................       60.28       95.99
                                                 -----------------------
    Difference from 2014 to 2026 (safety margin)       69.90       17.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina chose to apply a percentage of the safety margin to
each county in the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area for the year
2026 only.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A safety margin is the difference between the attainment
levels of emissions from all sources (i.e., point, area, on-road and
non-road) and the projected level of emissions from all source
categories. The state may choose to allocate some of the safety
margin to the MVEB for transportation conformity purposes, so long
as the total level of emissions from all source categories remains
below the attainment level of emissions. According to Section 93.118
of the transportation conformity rule, a maintenance plan must
contain a MVEB for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this
case 2026). North Carolina allocated a portion of the safety margin
for 2026 to the MVEBs to allow for unanticipated growth in vehicle
miles traveled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 11 through 13 provide the updated NOX and VOC
MVEBs with the added safety margins in kgsd for transportation
conformity purposes for 2014 and 2026. These MVEBs were developed using
a five-step approach that included the percentage each county was below
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, rapid growth in on-road vehicle emissions
anticipated and potential increases in vehicle miles traveled, and
vehicle mix and age distribution. In updating the MVEBs, North Carolina
ensured that the sum of the safety margin applied to the MVEBs do not
exceed 50 percent of the available safety margin. North Carolina has
established sub-area budgets for each metropolitan planning
organization within the Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area.

           Table 11--Cabarrus Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO) MVEBs in 2014 and 2026
                                                     [kgsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2014 NOX        2014 VOC        2026 NOX        2026 VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions..................................          11,814           7,173           3,381           3,371
Safety margin allocated to MVEB.................  ..............  ..............             846             843
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Conformity MVEB.............................          11,814           7,173           4,227           4,214
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 12--Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization (GCLMPO) MVEBs in 2014 and 2026
                                                     [kgsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2014 NOX        2014 VOC        2026 NOX        2026 VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions..................................          10,079           5,916           2,681           2,468
Safety margin allocated to MVEB.................  ..............  ..............             551             510
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Conformity MVEB.............................          10,079           5,916           3,232           2,978
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 13--Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO)--Rocky River Rural Planning
                                   Organization (RRRPO) MVEBs in 2014 and 2026
                                                     [kgsd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2014 NOX        2014 VOC        2026 NOX        2026 VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Emissions..................................          32,679          18,038           8,870           8,655
Safety margin allocated to MVEB.................  ..............  ..............           1,596           1,557
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Conformity MVEB.............................          32,679          18,038          10,466          10,212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A total of 2,993 kgsd (3.30 tpsd) of the 2026 NOX safety margin is
added to the MVEB for the entire Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area.
A total of 2,910 kgsd (3.21 tpsd) of the 2026 VOC safety margin is
added to the MVEB for the entire Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area.
The revised available safety margin, which considers the portion of the
safety margin applied to the new MVEB for each project year, is listed
below in Table 14.

    Table 14--New Safety Margin for the North Carolina Portion of the
              Charlotte 2008 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area
                                 [tpsd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                           NOX          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014..........................................          N/A          N/A
2015..........................................        -5.99        -2.03
2018..........................................       -45.49       -13.30
2022..........................................       -63.74       -15.84
2026..........................................       -66.60       -13.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the updated
sub-area MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2014 and 2026 for the
North Carolina portion of Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area because
EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the subarea MVEBs
for the North Carolina portion of Charlotte 2008 Ozone Maintenance Area
are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they
must be used for future conformity determinations. After thorough
review, EPA has determined that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria,
as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and is proposing to approve the
budgets because they are consistent with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2026.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following rules under Subchapter 2D of the North Carolina
SIP: Section .1001, Purpose; Section .1002, Applicability; Section
.1003, Definitions; and Section .1005, On-Board Diagnostic Standards.
The changes to Sections .1001, .1003, and .1005 are formatting or
clarifying in nature. The change to Section .1002 modifies the vehicle
model year coverage requirements for the 22 counties in North
Carolina's expanded I/M program. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained above in Section III of this proposed
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's July 25, 2018,
SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the formatting
and clarifying changes to Subchapter 2D, Sections .1001, .1003 and
.1005. EPA is also proposing to approve changes to Section .1002
relating to the vehicle model year coverage for the 22 counties in
North Carolina's expanded I/M program (Alamance, Buncombe, Cabarrus,
Cumberland, Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Guilford,
Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Onslow,
Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan, Union and Wake). Additionally, EPA is
proposing to find that the changes to the vehicle model year coverage
for the 22 counties in North Carolina's expanded I/M program will not
interfere with the State's obligations under the NOX SIP Call to meet
its Statewide NOX emissions budget and 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. Finally, EPA
is proposing to approve the updated emissions for the 2008 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan, including the updated MVEBs, for the Charlotte 2008
Ozone Maintenance Area.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 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 that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not propose to impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and

     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor
will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 6, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-10347 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ENGINE MANUFACTURER DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR 2007 AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL YEAR HEAVY DUTY ENGINES Public Hearing Date: May 20, 2004 Public Availability Date: July 26, 2004 Deadline for Public Comment: August 20, 2004 The Board's Action. At its May 20, 2004, public hearing, the Air Resources Board ( the " Board" or " ARB") approved the adoption of section 1971, title 13, California Code of Regulations (" CCR"). Upon becoming operative, section 1971 would establish engine manufacturer diagnostic (" EMD") requirements for 2007 and subsequent model year onroad heavy duty engines and vehicles produced for sale in California with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds.

At the hearing, the staff presented, and the Board approved, modifications to the regulation originally proposed in the Staff Report released on April 2, 2004, in response to comments received since the Staff Report was published. These staff's suggested modifications, which were made available during the hearing, include:

1) Clarification that engine manufacturers are responsible for the EMD system ( section 1971( a)). 2) Clarification that the proposed regulation applies only to gasoline and diesel fueled heavy duty engines ( section 1971( b)). 3) Addition of definitions for " engine" and " engine manufacturer" ( sections 1971( c)( 3) and ( c)( 4)). 4) Modification of the definition of " on road heavy duty engine" to include " related aftertreatment components" ( section 1971( c)( 9)). 5) Deletion/ change of all references of " powertrain" in the regulation ( sections 1971( e)( 4)( A) and ( f)( 2)). 6) Change of all references of " manufacturer" in regulation to " engine manufacturer."

Appended to this notice is Board Resolution 04 16 ( Attachment I), which approves the proposed regulation with modifications. Additions to the text are denoted by underline and deletions by strikeout. In the Resolution, the Board directed the Executive Officer to incorporate the approved modifications into the proposed regulatory text, along with such other conforming modifications as may be appropriate, and to make such modifications available for a supplemental comment period of at least 15 days. The approved regulation, as modified by the suggested modifications presented at the hearing, is appended to the Resolution as Attachment B. 2 Attachment I, with its attachments, may be obtained from the Internet at the following address: http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ regact/ emd2004/ emd2004. htm Printed copies may be obtained from Mr. Mike McCarthy, Manager, Advanced Engineering Section, of the Mobile Source Control Division, at ( 626) 575 6615.

Comments and Subsequent Action. In accordance with section 11346.8 of the Government Code, the Board directed the Executive Officer to adopt sections 1971, title 13, CCR, after making them available to the public for comment for a period of at least 15 days. The Board further provided that the Executive Officer shall consider such written comments as may be submitted during this period, shall make such modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, and shall present the regulation to the Board for further consideration if warranted.

Written comments on the proposed modifications may be submitted by postal mail, electronic mail, or facsimile as follows:

Postal mail is to be sent to:

Clerk of the Board Air Resources Board 1001 " I" Street, 23rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Electronic mail is to be sent to: emd2004@ listserv. arb. ca. gov Facsimile submissions are to be transmitted to: ( 916) 322 3928 In order to be considered by the Executive Officer, comments must be directed to the ARB in one of the three forms described above and received by the ARB by 5: 00 p. m. on the last day for comment, August 20, 2004. Only comments relating to the abovedescribed modifications to the text of the regulation shall be considered by the Executive Officer.

If you have a disability related accommodation need, please go to http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ html/ ada/ ada. htm for assistance or contact the ADA Coordinator at ( 916) 323 4916. If you are a person who needs assistance in a language other than English, please go to http:// inside. arb. ca. gov/ as/ eeo/ languageaccess. htm or contact the Bilingual Coordinator at ( 916) 324 5049. TTY/ TDD/ Speech to Speech users may dial 7 1 1 for the California Relay Service.

Attachments


 ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS> DISTRIBUTION Page __ 1_ of _ 1_

Project Name: 304( m) OCPSF Detailed Study TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 1/ 23/ 04 Time: 3 p. m.

Company Name: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ) Contact Name: Ellie Ku Codding Phone No.: 703 633 1673 Name: Michael Sunderlin Eastern Research Group, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Dow Freeport Facility NPDES Permit TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Michael Sunderlin to ask about the dioxin limit in the Dow Freeport facility's NPDES Permit dated 2003. Mr. Sunderlin is the permit writer.

He said that the dioxin limit was determined as a water quality screening requirement. The Texas Water Quality Screening Requirements require permit applicants to test for toxic pollutants, including dioxin. Results from Outfall 001 for Freeport exceeded the dioxin water quality screening limit ( a daily average requirement) by more than 85%. If a site exceeds the water quality screening requirements ( the daily average) by greater than 70%, then they are required to monitor for the parameter. If the site exceeds the water quality screening requirements by greater than 85% of the daily average, then they are required to have an effluent limitation for the parameter. Freeport is now required to test for dioxin for three years, after which a permit limitation will be set for dioxin. If Freeport demonstrates for three years that dioxin is not present in the wastewater, then no limitation would be set.

The outfall that failed for dioxin includes wastewaters from several other sites. Mr. Sunderlin explained that Outfall 001 is a canal to which Freeport discharges, after which it enters the Brazos River. However, upstream of Freeport, several other chemical companies discharge to the same canal. Freeport has accepted final responsibility for the water quality in that outfall. The wastewater that failed the dioxin water quality standard came from this mixed wastewater.

I asked Mr. Sunderlin if an effluent guideline for dioxin would be helpful. He did not feel that one would be helpful.