[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70516-70525]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28371]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0562; FRL-9903-16-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Non-Interference Demonstration for Removal of Federal Low-
Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High
Point Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's
April 12, 2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision associated
with the currently approved maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the Greensboro/
Winston-Salem/High Point (Triad) Area. Specifically, North Carolina's
revision, including updated modeling, shows that the Triad Area would
continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if the currently
applicable Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard for gasoline of
7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) were modified to 9.0 psi for four
portions (Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford and Davie Counties) of the
``Triad Area'' during the high-ozone season. The State has included a
technical demonstration with the revision to demonstrate that a

less-stringent RVP standard of 9.0 psi in these portions of this area
would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS or any other applicable standard. Approval of this SIP revision
is a prerequisite for EPA's consideration of an amendment to the
regulations to remove the aforementioned portions of the Triad Area
from the list of areas that are currently subject to the Federal 7.8
psi RVP requirements. In addition, the revised on-road mobile and non-
road mobile source emissions modeling associated with the requested
modification to the RVP standard results in the use of the updated
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) and NONROAD2008 models which
are the most current versions of modeling systems available for these
sources. EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's April
12, 2013, SIP revision with respect to the revisions to the modeling
and associated technical demonstration associated with the State's
request for the removal of the Federal RVP requirements, and with
respect to the updated on-road mobile, non-road mobile and area source
emissions, is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions
of the Triad Area from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP
requirements, such action will occur in a subsequent rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 26,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R04-OAR-2013-0562 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0562, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0562. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman of the Regulatory
Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr.
Lakeman may be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is being proposed?
II. What is the background of the Triad Area?
III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?
IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?
V. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's submittal?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being proposed?

    The Triad Area in North Carolina is currently designated attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Area was redesignated from
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 2, 2008. See 73
FR 17897. This rulemaking proposes to approve a revision to the Section
110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the Triad
Area submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NC DENR). Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the maintenance plan, including updated modeling, that
show the Triad Area can continue to maintain the 1997 ozone standard
without reliance on emissions reductions based upon the use of gasoline
with an RVP of 7.8 psi in any of the Triad Area counties during the
high ozone season--June 1 through September 15.\1\ EPA is also
proposing to conclude that the new modeling demonstrates that the area
would continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard with the use of
gasoline with

an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Triad Area during the high ozone
season. Consistent with section 110(l) of the Act, EPA also proposes to
conclude that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the
Triad Area during the high ozone season would not interfere with other
applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed further below, a separate rulemaking is
required for relaxation of the current requirement to use gasoline
with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Area. This action proposes EPA's
evaluation of the approvability of Florida's revision to the
maintenance plan pursuant to section 110(l). The decision regarding
removal of Federal RVP requirements pursuant to section 211(h) in
the Area includes other considerations evaluated at the discretion
of the Administrator. As such, the determination regarding whether
to remove the Area from those areas subject to the section 211(h)
requirements is made through a separate rule making action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new modeling conducted by North Carolina to account for the
proposed relaxation of the applicable RVP standard in portions of the
Triad Area also results in changes to the on-road mobile, non-road
mobile and area source emissions associated with the maintenance
plan.\2\ As such, the North Carolina revision updates the on-road
mobile, non-road mobile and area source emissions for the Triad Area.
EPA is also proposing approval of this revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In addition to a less stringent RVP standard, the new
modeling also utilizes updated models for on-road and off-road
mobile emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This preamble is hereafter organized into five parts. Section II
provides the background of the Triad Area designation status with
respect to the various Ozone NAAQS. Section III describes the
applicable history of federal gasoline regulation. Section IV provides
the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of the volatility standards.
Section V provides EPA's analysis of the information submitted by North
Carolina to support a relaxation of the more stringent volatility
standard in the Triad Area and revisions to the on-road mobile, nonroad
mobile and area source emissions associated with Maintenance Plan for
the Triad Area and provides EPA's analysis regarding the proposed
revision.

II. What is the background of the Triad Area?

    On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated the Counties of
Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford in their entirety and the portion of
Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North
Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River in the
Triad Area as Moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Among
the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known
as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55
FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in greater detail below, as part
of the RVP requirements associated with the nonattainment designation,
gasoline sold in the Triad 1-hour nonattainment area could not exceed
7.8 psi RVP during the high-ozone season months.
    Following implementation of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement in the
Triad Area, on September 9, 1993, the Triad Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, based on 1989-1992 ambient air
quality monitoring data. See 58 FR 47391. North Carolina's November 13,
1992, 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request for
the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP standard. The requirements remained in
place for the Area when it was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated on July 18, 1997, and later
designated attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was
promulgated March 12, 2008. See 77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23857) unclassifiable/attainment or
nonattainment for the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Triad Area was
designated as nonattainment with a deferred effective date as part of
the Early Action Compact (EAC) \3\ program. (For more information on
the EAC program, see, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eac/fs20080331_eac.html.) The Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point nonattainment-
deferred EAC Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS expanded the Triad
Area to include the entire county of Davie, and Alamance, Caswell,
Randolph, and Rockingham Counties in their entirety. The Greensboro-
Winston Salem-High Point EAC Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with a design value of 0.083 parts per million (ppm) using three years
of quality assured data for the years of 2005-2007. On February 6,
2008, EPA proposed that 13 nonattainment areas with deferred effective
dates, including the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area, be
designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 6863.
These areas met all of the milestones of the EAC program and
demonstrated that they were in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS as of December 31, 2007. This rulemaking was finalized on April
2, 2008. See 73 FR 17897. Effective April 15, 2008, the Greensboro-
Winston Salem-High Point EAC Area was designated as attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, these attainment areas consequently
were required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section
110(a)(1) of the CAA. As required, these plans provide for continued
attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least
10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include
components illustrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS and provided contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An EAC is an agreement between a State, local governments
and EPA to implement measures not necessarily required by the Act in
order to achieve cleaner air as soon as possible. The program was
designed for areas that approach or monitor exceedances of the 8-
hour ozone standard, but are in attainment for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma
or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c)
of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868),
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high
ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase
nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11,
1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls
as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements
established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on
the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment
designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high
ozone season).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from

establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an
attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent)
standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to
attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658).
    As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls and
reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published
in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to EPA's
volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality
and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the
statutory limits.\4\ In those rulemakings, EPA explained that the
governor of a state may petition EPA to set a volatility standard less
stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a nonattainment
area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is appropriate
because of a particular local economic impact and that sufficient
alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current listing of the RVP
requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990), 56 FR 24242 (May 29, 1991)
and 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard
is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In
order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an
attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to
make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is
capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years
after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this
maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of
maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA
will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a
relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction
of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without
the need for the more stringent volatility standard. As noted above,
however, North Carolina did not request relaxation of the applicable
7.8 psi RVP standard when the Triad Area was redesignated to attainment
for the either the 1-hour or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, North
Carolina is now seeking to relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard after the
Triad Area has been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the original modeling and maintenance
demonstration supporting the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan must be
revised to reflect continued attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP
standard that the State has requested.

IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?

    Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP) (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the
approvability of North Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision is
whether this requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.
Because the modeling associated with the current maintenance plan for
North Carolina is premised in part upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirements, a
request to revise the maintenance plan modeling to no longer rely on
the 7.8 psi RVP requirement is subject to the requirements of CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, the State must demonstrate that this
revision will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any
of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    This section 110(l) non-interference demonstration is a case-by-
case determination based upon the circumstances of each SIP revision.
EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect,
including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has
not yet made designations. The specific elements of the 110(l) analysis
contained in the SIP revision depend on the circumstances and emissions
analyses associated with that revision. EPA's analysis of North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision, including review of section
110(l) requirements is provided below.
    Finally, EPA notes that this rulemaking is only proposing to
approve the State's revision to its existing maintenance plan for the
Triad Area showing that the area can continue to maintain the standard
without relying upon gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi being sold in the
Triad Area during the high ozone season. Consistent with CAA section
211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations a separate rulemaking is
required for relaxation of the current requirement to use gasoline with
an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Triad Area.

V. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's submittal?

a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions for Non-Interference Analyses for
North Carolina's Request for Removal of the Federal RVP Requirement

    On April 12, 2013, NC DENR submitted a revision to the maintenance
plan for the Triad 1-hour ozone maintenance area. The revision updates
the on-road mobile, non-road mobile, and area source emissions that
would result from modifying the RVP summertime gasoline requirement
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Triad Area. North Carolina's April 12,
2013, SIP revision also includes an evaluation of the impact that the
removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the
1997 and 2008 ozone standards and on other applicable NAAQS. For the
purposes of this change, EPA is making the preliminary determination
that the applicable NAAQS \5\ of interest for the non-interference
demonstration required by section 110(l) of the CAA are the carbon
monoxide (CO), ozone, particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare
based standards are carbon monoxide, lead, NO2, ozone,
PM, and SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VOC and NOX emissions are precursors for ozone and PM,
and NO2 is a component of NOX. In addition, EPA
also believes that, in this instance, it is appropriate to also
evaluate non-interference with respect to the CO NAAQS. Typically, EPA
would not expect the CO NAAQS to be affected by a revision to RVP
requirements because VOC and NOX are not precursors to CO.
The revised modeling submitted by North Carolina, however, demonstrates
a slight increase in CO emissions, and as such, EPA believes a non-
interference review for CO is also appropriate in this case.
    There are no emissions reductions attributable to the emissions of
lead and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from RVP requirements. As a
result, there is no

information indicating the proposed revision would have any impact on
those NAAQS. Additionally, the Triad Area is currently designated
attainment for the lead NAAQS, and is continuing to attain the
standard. As for the SO2 NAAQS, the Triad Area is not
designated nonattainment and there is no available monitoring data
indicating an exceedance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the analysis below
focuses on the impact of North Carolina's requested RVP change to the
ozone, particulate matter, NO2 and CO NAAQS.
    In North Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision, the State
provided a technical demonstration to support the request to modify the
RVP summertime gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the
Triad Area. NC DENR provided information regarding the emissions trends
from the maintenance plans for the ozone NAAQS and conducted a
photochemical modeling exercise to show that modifying the RVP
summertime gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would have no
impact on the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition there was not a significant increase in CO and
NO2 emissions. See the non-interference discussions below
for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 12, 2013, SIP revision, NC DENR provided an updated
analysis utilizing EPA's MOVES emission modeling system to estimate
emissions for mobile sources. These mobile source emissions are used as
part of the evaluation of the potential impacts to the ozone NAAQS that
might result exclusively from changing the high ozone season RVP
requirements from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. The MOVES data resulted in minor
increases to the on-road mobile and area source emissions. The State
then used the MOVES-generated revised mobile source emissions in the
Triad Area that resulted from the RVP program change in photochemical
grid modeling to simulate the impact on ozone formation. In addition to
modeling the small RVP changes over the Triad Area, NC DENR also
modeled the shutdown of three coal-fired electric generating units
(EGUs) (Buck, Dan River, and Riverbend), that were located in counties
adjacent to the Triad Area. Combined-cycle natural gas units have been
built at two of these facilities (Buck and Dan River) replacing the now
decommissioned coal-fired units. The federally-enforceable emission
limits associated with these new combined-cycle units were included
with the modeling conducted by NC DENR. The modeling shows that
relaxation of the RVP standard to 9.0 psi would not interfere with
continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Triad Area.

b. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    As previously discussed, effective November 6, 1991, the Triad Area
(which consisted of Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford Counties in their
entirety and a portion of Davie County) was designated as nonattainment
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area,
Davidson, Davie, Forsyth and Guilford Counties were subject to the
federal RVP requirements for high ozone season gasoline to aid the Area
with compliance with the ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 1992, NC DENR
submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    On February 6, 2008, EPA proposed that 13 nonattainment areas with
deferred effective dates, including the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High
Point Area, be designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 73 FR 6863. These areas met all of the milestones of the EAC
program and demonstrated that they were in attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS as of December 31, 2007. Effective April 15, 2008, the
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point EAC Area was designated as
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.083
ppm using three years of quality assured data for the years of 2005-
2007.
    Throughout this history, there is an overall downward trend in
ozone concentration in the Triad Area that can be attributed to Federal
and State programs that have led to significant emissions reductions.
The Triad Area is continuing to meet the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\7\ With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on the 2010-2012
design values of 0.078 ppm and 0.076 ppm, Triad Area monitors in
Forsyth and Guilford Counties, respectively, are violating the 2008
ozone NAAQS. However, the preliminary 2011-2013 design values for
Forsyth and Guilford Counties are 0.073 ppm and 0.072 ppm,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour
ozone concentration. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
0.075 ppm. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met when the design
value is greater than 0.075 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075
ppm or less. Currently (as shown in Table 1), all ozone monitors in the
Triad Area are attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and all but three
ozone monitors (two located in Forsyth County and one located in
Guilford County) are attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

                                                            Table 1--Triad Area Design Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           2005-2007 DV    2006-2008 DV    2007-2009 DV    2008-2010 DV    2009-2011 DV    2010-2012 DV
                         County                                (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caswell.................................................           0.077           0.079           0.076           0.073           0.070           0.073
Davie...................................................           0.083           0.082           0.078           (\8\)  ..............           0.073
Forsyth.................................................           0.081           0.081           0.077           0.076           0.075           0.078
Guilford................................................           0.082           0.082           0.079           0.076           0.074           0.076
Rockingham..............................................           0.078           0.080           0.078           0.075           0.071           0.073
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- indicates no data available.

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

    \8\ The Davie County monitor was moved to a new location and
began monitoring at the new location in 2008. There was not enough
data at this location to calculate a 3 year averaged design value
until 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 22, 2013, NC DENR submitted a letter to EPA describing
its intention to early certify ozone monitoring data for the Triad Area
based on 2011-2013 data. Once certified, this data is expected to
demonstrate that all monitors in the Triad Area are attaining the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS based on 2011-2013 data. EPA is proposing this
action contingent on the 2011-2013 monitoring data, showing continued
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, being quality assured and certified
prior

to the Agency taking final action on this proposed rule.
    The primary precursors for ozone are VOC and NOX
emissions. Relaxation of the RVP standard from 7.8 to 9.0 psi results
in a slight increase in emissions of 0.16 tons per day (tpd) (a 0.28
percent increase) in NOX, and 1.43 tpd (a 1.34 percent
increase) in VOC for Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford and Davie Counties.
While modeling showed a slight increase in NOX and VOC
emissions resulting from the use of 9.0 psi RVP gasoline as opposed to
7.8 psi RVP gasoline, the most appropriate analysis for purposes of
evaluating non-interference is whether the increase in emissions would
interfere with air quality for the Triad Area. For this demonstration,
NC DENR chose to use photochemical modeling which is described below.
    In addition to analyzing the photochemical modeling provided by
North Carolina, EPA also notes that the Triad Area is located within a
NOX-limited region.\9\ A NOX-limited region is
one in which the concentration of ozone is limited by the amount of
NOX emissions. As discussed above, NOX and VOC
are precursors to the formation of ozone in the atmosphere. In a
NOX-limited area, high prevailing concentrations of VOC from
naturally-occurring sources are present in the atmosphere to contribute
to ozone formation. Consequently, reduction of manmade, or
anthropogenic, sources of VOC emissions generally do not result in
reduced ozone formation. Instead, reductions of NOX
emissions provide a more effective ozone reduction strategy because
reduced emissions of manmade NOX emissions limit the amount
of NOX available in the atmosphere for ozone formation.
These circumstances help support the reasonableness of the modeling
showing that the small increase in VOC and even smaller increase in
NOX from the relaxation of the RVP standard would not
interfere with continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the Triad
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., The State of the Southern Oxidants Study (SOS)
Policy Relevant Findings in Ozone and PM2.5 Pollution
Research 1995-2003 (June 30, 2004), http://www.ncsu.edu/sos/pubs/sos3/State_of_SOS_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NC DENR utilized EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) modeling
platform to model changes in ozone and particle matter pollution. The
modeling years used in the modeling included the 2005 base year and the
2016 future year. The future year 2016 was chosen because it is the
latest MATS model data available. The USEPA MATS modeling platform was
chosen because it is fairly recent, has undergone full model
performance, and uses the MOVES mobile model to generate on-road mobile
emissions. The USEPA MATS modeling used a national 36 kilometer (km)
domain and an eastern US 12 km domain. The NC DENR modeling was
performed using the 12 km modeling domain. The EPA is currently using
12 km modeling to address the impacts of the proposed Tier 3 Motor
Vehicle and Emissions Standards. Given that the EPA is using the 12 km
modeling for Tier 3, NC DENR used the 12 km modeling to estimate the
impacts of the change in summertime RVP to 9.0 psi.
    The USEPA MATS modeling conducted by NC DENR demonstrates that the
relaxation of the RVP 7.8 standard to 9.0 psi in the Triad 1-hour ozone
maintenance area is not necessary to maintain the either the 1997 or
2008 ozone NAAQS. Both the 2005 base year and the 2016 future year were
used in the modeling. In the modeling NC DENR applied several
conservative estimates to determine the maximum impact of RVP
relaxation. These included:
    (1) Selecting the most populous county to represent on-road mobile
emissions for the other counties. Guilford County was selected to
represent the ``highest'' level of emissions increase expected because
it has the greatest population of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) within the Triad maintenance area.
    (2) Applying the maximum emissions increase for a given hour to the
entire summertime period. Typically, the next step is to run SMOKE \10\
to temporally and spatially allocate the MOVES output. However, NC DENR
was unable to run the version of SMOKE used in the MATS modeling. As an
alternative, for each pollutant, the average and maximum increase at
any hour was calculated (see Table 2.3-8 of the NC submittal). In order
to generate very conservative estimates of the impacts of the RVP
relaxation, the maximum percent increase was applied to the mobile
emissions for all hours of the June 1 to September 15 high-ozone season
RVP period for both the 2005 and 2016 emissions in Guilford, Forsyth,
Davie, and Davidson Counties where the RVP relaxation is proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ SMOKE, or ``Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions'' is an
emissions processing system designed to create gridded, speciated,
hourly emissions for input into a variety of air quality models.
SMOKE supports area, biogenic, mobile (both onroad and nonroad), and
point source emissions processing for criteria, particulate, and
toxic pollutants and is integrated with the on-road emissions model
MOBILE6 and MOVES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Using the highest emissions increase for a given pollutant to
represent VOC emissions.
    (4) The liberal application of grid masking (i.e., the array of
grid cells where the RVP emissions changes were applied). A grid cell
was included in the grid cell mask if as little as 20 percent of the
cell area includes one or more of the counties where the RVP relaxation
is proposed. The grid cell mask includes 42 grid cells with an area of
6,048 km\2\. A typical application of the mask would include 32 grid
cells with an area of 4,608 km\2\. By comparison, the total area of the
four counties is 4,935 km\2\. The 20 percent threshold grid cell mask
used in the modeling will adjust the mobile emissions in a larger area
than the actual area of the four counties and will lead to conservative
modeling results.
    NC DENR used the Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System
(CMAQ, v.4.71) to perform the air quality runs. A total of six runs
were made from March 20, 2005 to September 30, 2005. A total of three
runs were made using the 2005 emissions. The first run used the default
2005 MATS emissions (BASE05). The second run adjusted the mobile
emissions due to the change in RVP from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi during the
June 1 to September 15 RVP period (RVP05). The third run for 2005
included the RVP adjustments and added expected NOX changes
at the Buck, Dan River, Riverbend power plants. The 2016 model runs
were run in a similar fashion as the 2005 runs. The first run used the
default 2016 MATS emissions (BASE16). The second run adjusted the
mobile emissions due to the change in RVP from 7.8 to 9.0 psi during
the June 1 to September 15 RVP period (RVP16) and the third included
the RVP adjustments and added expected NOX changes at the
Buck, Dan River, Riverbend power plants.
    In this application, The Model Attainment Test Software was used to
compute relative reduction factors (RRFs) for each of the sensitivity
runs at the area monitors. The 2005 sensitivity runs were compared to
the Base05 run, and the 2016 sensitivity runs were compared to the
Base16 run. RRF values of 1.0005 or less would indicate less than a
0.05 ppb rise within the base year or future year modeling. The change
in ozone for monitors in and near the Triad Area generated by the
change in RVP in the 2005 base year is shown in Table 2. The other runs
had similar results. There is no appreciable change in ozone
concentrations due to the increase in gasoline RVP.
    See North Carolina's April 12, 2013, submittal for more information
on the modeling demonstration.

  Table 2--Change in Ozone Concentrations and RRFs in the 2005 Base Year Modeling With Summertime RVP Change to
                                                     9.0 psi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   County Base05
                                                   ozone design     RVP05 Ozone                     Change from
                     County                          value \1\     design value         RRF          Base05 to
                                                       (ppb)         \2\ (ppb)                     RVP05  (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caswell.........................................            76.3            76.3          1.0002             0.0
Davie...........................................            81.3            81.3          1.0002             0.0
Forsyth.........................................            78.0            78.0          1.0004             0.0
Forsyth.........................................            73.0            73.0          1.0003             0.0
Forsyth.........................................            76.0            76.0          1.0004             0.0
Forsyth.........................................            80.0            80.0          1.0004             0.0
Guilford........................................            77.0            77.0          1.0005             0.0
Guilford........................................            82.0            82.0          1.0005             0.0
Rockingham......................................            77.0            77.0          1.0003             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Default 2005 MATS concentrations.
\2\ 2005 concentrations with summertime RVP changed to 9.0 psi.

It should also be noted that in its submission, North Carolina provided
a demonstration that there is no appreciable change in future ozone
design value concentrations at any of the area monitors when comparing
changes in ozone concentration and RRFs in a future year scenario for
2016 that modeled summertime RVP at 9.0 psi. North Carolina's model
runs were done solely for the purpose of determining potential and
relative impact for changes in ozone concentration due to a change of
RVP to 9.0 psi. More information on the MATS modeling can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/mats/actions.html. Additional details on NC DENR's
updates to the EPA MATS modeling platform to incorporate emissions in
North Carolina are included in the State's April 12, 2013, SIP
revision.

    To provide a full evaluation, the State also compared total man-
made (anthropogenic) emissions of VOC and NOX for the years
2007 (base year), 2011, and 2018 using a RVP of 7.8 psi for Davidson,
Forsyth, Guilford and Davie Counties (the remaining Counties are
currently using a RVP of 9.0 psi) to emissions generated for the year
2018, using a RVP of 9.0 psi.
    There are four different man-made emission inventory source
classifications: (1) Point, (2) area, (3) on-road mobile and (4) non-
road mobile.
    (1) Point sources are those stationary sources that emit more than
10 tons per year of VOC or 100 tons per year of NOZX from a
single facility. The source emissions are tabulated from data collected
by direct on-site measurements of emissions or mass balance
calculations utilizing emission factors from EPA's AP-42, Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. For the projected year's inventory,
point sources are adjusted by growth factors based on Standard
Industrial Classification codes. The growth factors are generated using
the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System version 5.0 (E-GAS 5.0)
program.
    (2) Area sources are those stationary sources whose emissions are
relatively small but due to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions could be significant (i.e., dry cleaners, service
stations, etc.). For area sources, emissions are estimated by
multiplying an emission factor by some known indicator of collective
activity such as production, number of employees, or population. These
types of emissions are estimated on the county level. For the projected
year's inventory, area source emissions are changed by population
growth, projected production growth, or when applicable, by E-GAS 5.0
growth factors.
    (3) On-road mobile sources are those vehicles that travel on the
roadways. For on-road mobile sources, the MOVES model data represent
the new motor vehicle emission budgets for the Triad Area. The MOVES
model uses the road class VMT and other operating conditions as input
parameters to generate an output file that contains estimated
emissions. For the projected years inventories, the on-road mobile
sources emissions are calculated by running the MOVES mobile model for
the future year with the projected VMT to generate emissions that take
into consideration expected Federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover
and new fuel standards.
    (4) Non-road mobile sources are equipment that can move but do not
use the roadways (i.e., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad
locomotives, aircraft). With the exception of the railroad locomotives
and aircraft engines, the emissions from this category are calculated
using the EPA's NONROAD2008a non-road mobile model. The railroad
locomotive and aircraft engine emissions are estimated by taking an
activity and multiply by an emission factor. All emissions are also
estimated at the county level. Total off-road mobile source emissions
represent the sum of emissions generated by the NONROAD 2008a model and
emissions calculated for aircraft and railroad locomotives.
    Despite the small increases in emissions projected for the less-
stringent RVP standard of 9.0 psi, the Triad Area continues to
demonstrate a downward trend in NOX and VOC emissions
through 2018. Tables 3 and 4 below provide the emissions inventory
estimates for all source categories for the 1-hour ozone maintenance
area.

                Table 3--Anthropogenic VOC Emissions (tpd) for the Triad 1-Hour Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Based on RVP of 7.8                Based on RVP
                                                 ------------------------------------------------     of 9.0
                     County                                                                      ---------------
                                                       2007            2011            2018            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson........................................           19.31           17.60           14.29           14.50
Davie *.........................................            8.04            7.79            8.43            8.43
Forsyth.........................................           36.62           32.63           32.69           33.18

Guilford........................................           58.31           53.71           51.10           51.83
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          122.28          111.73          106.51          107.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions are for the entire County.

                Table 4--Anthropogenic NOX Emissions (tpd) for the Triad 1-Hour Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Based on RVP of 7.8                Based on RVP
                                                 ------------------------------------------------     of 9.0
                     County                                                                      ---------------
                                                       2007            2011            2018            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson........................................           21.99           17.94            9.88            9.91
Davie *.........................................            6.08            4.41            2.75            2.75
Forsyth.........................................           35.88           24.47           16.50           16.54
Guilford........................................           57.68           44.76           28.00           28.09
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          121.63           91.58           57.13           57.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions are for the entire County.

    As Tables 3 and 4 indicate, NOX and VOC emissions in the
Triad 1-hour ozone maintenance area will continue to decrease, even
with the increase in high ozone season fuel RVP to 9.0 psi. The slight
increase in emissions resulting from the control program change is
being mitigated area-wide by a steady decrease in tailpipe emissions,
which is the result of a cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing the older
fleet and other Federal and State emissions reduction programs.
    In light of the current designations, monitoring and emissions
data, and the submitted modeling, including the fact that the
NOX emissions inventories are projected to continue to
significantly decrease, EPA has preliminarily determined that the
slight increase in NOX and VOC emissions associated with the
request RVP change will not interfere with the Area's ability to
maintain the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. More details on the
individual non-interference analyses for the PM2.5,
NO2 and CO NAAQS are provided below.

c. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM NAAQS

    The precursors for PM2.5 are NOX,
SO2, VOC and ammonia. For the Triad Area, on-road mobile,
non-road mobile and area sources are not considered to be large
contributors to directly emitted PM2.5 or indirectly formed
fine particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5)
concentrations. As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, the RVP
requirements result in emissions benefits for VOC and NOX,
and as such EPA focused on these precursors for the analysis of the
potential impact of North Carolina's SIP change. However, as described
in North Carolina's April 12, 2013, submission, directly emitted
PM2.5 is a very small component of the overall
PM2.5 ambient concentrations. Instead the primary species
impacting PM2.5 concentrations are the secondarily formed
sulfates and organic carbons. Sulfates are formed through the chemical
reaction of SO2 and ammonia and the majority of the organic
carbons come from natural sources like trees. See ``Redesignation
Demonstration and Maintenance Plan for the Hickory (Catawba County) and
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point (Davidson and Guilford Counties)
Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas,'' submitted to EPA on
December 18, 2009, Figure 4-2, p. 4-4, which can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-1010. A 2009
analysis of SO2 emissions, which is a primary contributor to
the formation of PM2.5 within North Carolina, found about
3.3 percent of total SO2 emissions came from on-road, non-
road and area sources combined, while the remaining 96.7 percent came
from point sources.
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA established an
annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that
time, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a
3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), Davidson and Guilford Counties in
the Triad Area were designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard and all other Counties were designated
Unclassifiable/Attainment. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), all
counties in the Triad Area were designated unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. On November 18, 2011,
EPA redesignated Davidson and Guilford Counties to attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on the measured air quality
data and the 10-year maintenance plan submitted. See 76 FR 71455.
    As Table 5 indicates the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour design
values demonstrate attainment of the respective NAAQS and have been
decreasing.

                                          Table 5--PM2.5 Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                   2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual Design Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caswell.........................................................             9.9             8.9             8.9
Davidson........................................................            12.1            11.1            11.1
Forsyth.........................................................            10.9            10.0             9.7
Guilford........................................................            10.8             9.8             9.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              24-hour Design Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caswell.........................................................              19              18              18
Davidson........................................................              23              21              21
Forsyth.........................................................              23              21              20
Guilford........................................................              22              21              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Annual PM2.5 NAAQS: 15 [mu]g/m\3\.
EPA 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS: 35 [mu]g/m\3\.

    In light of the slight increase in VOC and NOX emissions
from the relaxation of the RVP controls in Davidson, Davie, Forsyth and
Guilford Counties, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to
the Federal RVP requirement for Davidson, Davie, Forsyth and Guilford
Counties would not interfere with the Triad Area maintaining the 1997
PM2.5 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
The photochemical modeling analysis discussed above was also used to
calculate the changes in PM2.5 due to the RVP Program
change. The analysis showed no change in particle pollution at any of
the monitors.

d. Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA finalized designations for
2010 NO2 NAAQS. Counties in North Carolina, including those
in the Triad Area, were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. Based on North Carolina's April 12, 2013,
SIP revision, the potential increase in the NOX emissions
associated with the requested less-stringent RVP standard is
approximately a quarter of a ton per day between June 1st and September
15th. It is reasonable to believe that North Carolina's requested
change for its high ozone season RVP requirement would not cause the
Area to be out of compliance with the 2010 NO2 NAAQS because
the slight projected NOX emissions increase would be
mitigated by a steady decrease in tailpipe emissions, which is the
result of cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing the older fleet. In light
of the current designation, monitoring and emissions trend data and the
submitted modeling, including the fact that NOX emissions
inventories are projected to continue to significantly decrease,\11\
EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to the Federal RVP
requirements for the Triad Area would not interfere with the continued
decline in NOX emissions, nor with attainment or maintenance
of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See table 5, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO NAAQS

    Forsyth County in the Triad Area was previously designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991. Subsequently, Forsyth County attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS and was
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment on September 21, 1994,
based on the measured air quality data and the 10-year maintenance plan
submitted. See 59 FR 48399. The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm and the 1-hour
CO NAAQS is 35 ppm. As provided in Table 6 below, monitoring data from
2008-2011 shows Forsyth County is well below the 8-hour and 1-hour CO
NAAQS.

                      Table 6--Ambient Air Quality CO 8-Hour and 1-Hour Design Values (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             County                 Monitor ID         2009            2010            2011            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   8-hr NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forsyth.........................       370670023             1.7             1.9             2.1             1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1-hr NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forsyth.........................       370670023             2.3             2.7             2.6             1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is estimated that Triad Area on-road CO emissions will increase
approximately 5 tons per day in 2016 if the applicable RVP requirement
is relaxed to 9.0 psi in the Triad Area. This increase equates to a
less than a 1.0 percent increase in the total inventory of all
anthropogenic sources for the Triad Area. In light of the slight
increase in CO emissions EPA has preliminarily determined that a change
to the Federal RVP requirement for Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point
would not interfere with the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Area
maintaining the CO NAAQS.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's April 12,
2013, revision to its 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the Triad 1997 8-
hour Ozone Maintenance Area. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve
the State's showing that the Triad Area can continue to maintain the
1997 ozone

standard without emissions reductions associated with the use of
gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the four Triad Area counties during
the high ozone season--June 1 through September 15.
    In addition, due to the updated modeling reflecting a change in the
applicable RVP standard, the North Carolina revision also includes an
updated on-road mobile, non-road mobile and area source emissions for
the Triad Area. EPA is also proposing approval of this revision.
    EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's April 12,
2013, SIP revision, including the technical demonstration associated
with the State's request for the removal of the Federal RVP
requirements, and the updated on-road mobile, non-road mobile and area
source emissions are consistent with the applicable provisions of the
CAA. Should EPA decide to remove subject portions of the Triad Area
from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal RVP requirements, such
action will occur in a separate, subsequent rulemaking.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: November 12, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-28371 Filed 11-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Rich Mason/RTP/USEPA/US

10/23/2007 11:34 AM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

David Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RIA workshop Emissions Modeling questions resolved

Hi Janet, Ron and David,

I've closed the loop on 2 questions from Indur Goklany (DOI):

Q 1: Does the US onroad inventory account for fleet characteristics in border states/coutnies including Mexico vehicles?

A1:  I forwarded this to Indur  on 10/18:  According to Dave Brzezinski,

MOBILE6 does not know if we are modeling a county in Texas or in Maine.

Since we do not adjust the emission rates assumed for Texas, all of the

VMT in Texas counties is assumed to have been driven by U.S. certified

vehicles.

Q2:  What is the source of the BELD3 land use data used as input for the biogenics modeling?

A2:  Chris Geron from ORD provided a draft paper including figures and tables on this.  I forwarded this on 10/23.

_____________________________________________

Rich Mason

Physical Scientist

Emission Inventory Analysis Group

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Drop C339-02,109 TW Alexander Dr., RTP,NC 27711

(919) 541-3405 ( fax: -0684)


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 183 (Friday, September 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 53101]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4498-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Colorado; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4498-DR), dated March 28, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
dated March 28, 2020 for the State of Colorado is hereby amended to
include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    All areas within the State of Colorado are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-20719 Filed 9-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 33995-33996]
[DOCID:fr20jn07-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-484-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Limited
Waiver

June 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 8, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing a petition for a limited waiver of its
FERC Gas Tariff in order to allow Greater Minnesota Gas Inc. (GMG) to
extend firm transportation entitlement on a currently effective Firm
Throughput Service Agreement despite inadvertently failing to meet the
thirty day deadline to execute the Agreement after it was tendered by
Northern.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time June 19, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11866 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6778-6779]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

February 02, 2011.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1753-000.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Par.
    Description: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership
submits tariff filing per 154.203: Transporters Use Report Jul-Dec 2010
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110201-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1754-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company.
    Description: El Paso Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: MDO/MHO Variance Activity Report/Filing to be effective 4/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110201-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1755-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.203: TETLP Gas Quality Docket RP10-30 Compliance Filing (2) to
be effective 3/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 02/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110201-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 14, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2707 Filed 2-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47090-47092]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19799]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0623; FRL-9448-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Preconstruction Permitting Requirements for Electric
Generating Stations in Maryland

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
on May 13, 2011 and July 15, 2011. This SIP revision revises and
supplements the preconstruction permitting requirements for electric
generating stations that are required to receive a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Maryland Public
Service Commission (PSC) before commencing construction. The SIP
revision also requires electric generating stations to obtain a
preconstruction permit from the MDE when a CPCN is not required under
the PSC regulations and statutes. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 6,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0623 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0623, Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate
Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    4. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0623. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. EPA is proposing approval of
this SIP revision because it corrects the deficiencies in the Maryland
SIP and eliminates inconsistencies between State statutory and
regulatory requirements for preconstruction permitting for electric
generating stations in Maryland. It will also ensure that the SIP is
adequate to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by Sections
110(a) and 161 of the CAA and 40 CFR

51.166, and will ensure that the SIP provides for the attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On May 13, 2011, MDE submitted a SIP revision request (11-
01) to EPA. The MDE is the State agency designated by the Governor of
the State of Maryland as the official State agency responsible for
implementing the CAA. The Maryland PSC is an agent of the State of
Maryland and is an independent unit in the Executive Branch of the
government of the State of Maryland. The PSC regulates public utilities
including generating stations owned by electric companies doing
business in Maryland and is empowered by the State of Maryland to issue
Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the
construction and modification of electric generating stations.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires the State's SIP to have a
program for regulation of construction and modification of sources.
This includes the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) programs as required by Parts C
and D of Title I of the CAA to assure that the NAAQS are protected.
Electric generating stations in Maryland are required to obtain a CPCN
from the PSC prior to construction or modification. We are proposing to
approve the May 13, 2011 SIP revision that requires electric generating
stations to obtain a CPCN prior to construction. This SIP revision also
requires that all of the air quality provisions that would otherwise be
incorporated into a permit to construct or an approval issued by MDE
must be contained in a CPCN issued by the PSC.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    As provided in Environment Article 2, 2-402(3), Annotated Code of
Maryland, electric generating stations that are not required to obtain
a CPCN from the PSC for any reason remain subject to MDE's
preconstruction permitting requirements. However, the current SIP-
approved regulations at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and .10 exempt all electric
generating stations constructed or modified by electric generating
companies from MDE's permitting regulations. These regulations are
inconsistent with the statutory provision in that they do not preserve
MDE's permitting authority for electric generating stations that are
not required to obtain a CPCN. We are proposing to approve the SIP
revision submitted by MDE on May 13, 2011 to include updated provisions
at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and .10.
    For the first time, MDE is also submitting for the approval into
its SIP, Public Utility Companies Article, 7-205, 7-207, 7-207.1 and 7-
208, Annotated Code of Maryland as well as the PSC regulations at COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>, .02, .06 and .07, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, .02, and .03, and
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and .02. The Public Utility Companies Article's
provisions and the associated PSC regulations govern more than CAA
requirements and air quality issues. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve into the SIP only those regulatory and statutory provisions
that govern the PSC process which are necessary to implement CAA
requirements, and are taking no action on those portions of Maryland's
May 13, 2001 submittal which are unrelated to requirements of the CAA
The technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking action specifies those provisions of the May 13,
2011 SIP revision request that are being proposed for approval into the
SIP. The TSD also specifies those provisions upon which EPA is taking
no action.
    This SIP revision, when approved, will correct deficiencies within
the current Maryland SIP and will allow Maryland's programs for the
permitting of electric generating stations to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA and Federal regulations.
    As previously stated, the May 13, 2011 SIP revision request
includes (among other requirements) Title 20, Subtitle 79, Chapter 01,
paragraph .07 Waivers and Modifications and Title 20, Subtitle 79,
Chapter 02 paragraph .03 Proceedings on the Application, specifically
subparagraph C. Phased Proceedings Requests. On July 15, 2011,
Secretary Robert M. Summers of MDE submitted a letter to Shawn M.
Garvin, Regional Administrator of EPA Region III to supplement the May
13, 2011 SIP revision request. The July 15, 2011 letter provides
assurances that when the PSC implements these regulatory provisions,
MDE, pursuant to its authority under the Public Utility Companies
Article, Subsection 7-208, paragraph (f), will ensure that no waivers,
modifications or phased applications are issued or accepted by the PSC
that do not comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal
Clean Air Act and Federal regulations. We are proposing to make this
letter part of the Maryland SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision request submitted by
MDE on May 13, 2011 as supplemented on July 15, 2011, regarding the
preconstruction permitting requirements for electric generating
stations because it satisfies the applicable provisions of the CAA and
associated Federal regulations. We are soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because 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, this proposed rule for clarifying the statutes and
regulations in the Maryland State Implementation Plan for the
preconstruction permitting requirements for electric generating
stations in Maryland does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 22, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-19799 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P