[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38436-38441]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12601]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0406; FRL-10991-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Bulk Gasoline Plant and
Terminal Vapor Recovery Systems

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
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of
Air Quality (DAQ), via a letter dated April 13, 2021. This SIP revision
includes changes to NCDEQ's regulations regarding bulk gasoline
terminals and plants, gasoline cargo tanks and vapor collection
systems, and leak tightness and vapor leak requirements. The EPA is
proposing to approve these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0406 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mrs. Sheckler can be
reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or via telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve changes to North Carolina's SIP
that were provided to EPA by NCDEQ via a letter dated April 13,
2021.\1\ Specifically, the EPA is proposing approval of changes to 15A
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02D, Rules .0926,
Bulk Gasoline Plants; .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; .0932, Gasoline
Cargo Tanks and Vapor Collection Systems; and .2615, Determination of
Leak Tightness and Vapor Leaks.\2\ The changes to these rules, as well
as EPA's analysis of the changes, are discussed in the following
section.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the April 13, 2021, submittal was received by
EPA on April 14, 2021.
    \2\ EPA also notes that the Agency received several revisions to
the North Carolina SIP transmitted with the same April 13, 2021,
cover letter. EPA is not proposing to act on revisions to the North
Carolina SIP in this notice that are not explicitly identified
herein. EPA may act on these other SIP revisions in separate
rulemakings.
    \3\ On July 6, 2022, NCDEQ submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing
the references to 02D .0960 from Rules 02D .0926 and 02D .0927. For
this reason, EPA will not act on those changes in Rules 02D .0926
and 02D .0927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's April 13, 2021, Submittal

    Follows is EPA's analysis of the changes in the April 13, 2021, SIP
revision that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.

A. Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants

    North Carolina's April 13, 2021, SIP revision includes changes to
Rule 02D .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants, by adding one definition,
removing obsolete language, clarifying some requirements, and making
general grammar and formatting updates.\4\ The EPA provides further
detail below concerning the proposed changes to Rule 02D .0926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In Paragraph (n), North Carolina's Rule references Rule 02D
.0960 which is not in the SIP. DAQ has withdrawn that reference in
Paragraph (n) from the April 13, 2021, SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, North Carolina's SIP revision adds a definition at 02D
.0926(a)(5) for ``Cargo tank.'' All other definitions in this rule were
renumbered accordingly to reflect this change. This is a new definition
that refers to storage vessels on freight trucks or trailers that are
used to transport gasoline from sources of supply to stationary storage
tanks of bulk gasoline terminals, bulk gasoline plants, gasoline
dispensing facilities, and gasoline service stations. The term ``cargo
tank'' replaces the terms ``tank truck,'' ``trailer,'' ``trucks,''
``tank truck or trailer,'' ``tank trucks or trailers,'' and ``trucks or
trailers'' throughout Rule 02D .0926. These terms were not previously
defined in Rule 02D .0926. The effect of this change is to clarify that
the rule applies to cargo tanks rather than the motor vehicles the
tanks are attached to. This is clarifying in nature because the rule
has always pertained to the stationary source emissions released from
the cargo tanks attached to trucks and trailers, rather than the mobile
source emissions from motor vehicles.
    North Carolina has also made several modifications outside the
definitions section in Paragraph (a) that similarly do not result in
any changes to the meaning of the regulation. North Carolina has
removed the date ``May 1, 1993'' from Paragraph (c) in Rule 02D .0926.
Paragraph (c) previously required that owners or operators of bulk
gasoline plants not transfer gasoline to any storage tanks after May 1,
1993, unless both the unloading cargo tank and the receiving stationary
storage tank were equipped with an incoming vapor balance system and
the receiving stationary storage tank was equipped with a fill line.
North Carolina also removed the date ``November 1, 2002,'' in Paragraph
(j) of the Rule, which set a deadline by which all tanks used at bulk
gasoline plants must be painted. These dates, triggering their
respective compliance requirements, have passed. Therefore, removal of
these dates does not alter current regulatory requirements.
    Another modification in the SIP revision that does not change the
meaning of the regulation is in Paragraph (g). This paragraph requires
that all gasoline bulk plants located in a nonattainment area for ozone
comply with the control requirements outlined in Paragraphs (d) and
(e), even if the average daily throughput falls below the applicable
threshold. The proposed changes to the SIP-approved rule simply
streamline the language to make it more succinct. An additional
clarifying edit North Carolina made was to add the word ``volatile'' in
front of ``organic material'' each time that phrase is used in
Paragraph (i). Rule 02D .0926 has always regulated volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), so this modification does not change the meaning of
these provisions and simply provides a more accurate description of the
regulated pollutants. Also, in Paragraph (n), North Carolina revised
the sentence to provide clarity by including cross-references to the
applicable SIP-approved rules rather than summarizing the nature of
those rules. Specifically, the changes include adding complete
citations for 15A NCAC 02D .0932 and .2615, which provide the
regulatory requirements to certify a cargo tank as leak tight (.0932)
and in compliance with testing requirements (.2615).
    Next, North Carolina broadens the definition of ``Bulk Gasoline
Terminal'' by referring to gasoline storage facilities that have an
average daily throughput of ``greater than or equal'' to 20,000
gallons, rather than only ``more'' than 20,000 gallons.
    The remaining changes to Rule 02D .0926 are primarily minor
language edits, reformatting edits, and grammatical corrections. For
example, one language modification concerns word preference and changes
the word ``usually'' to ``typically.'' Another change capitalizes the
words ``vapor'' and ``pressure'' in ``Reid Vapor Pressure'' and adds
the abbreviation ``(RVP)''.
    For the reasons discussed above, these proposed changes to the SIP
would not interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.\5\ Therefore, the EPA is proposing
to approve the aforementioned changes to 02D .0926 into the North
Carolina SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a SIP
revision if the revision ``would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals

    North Carolina's April 13, 2021, SIP revision includes changes to
Rule 02D .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals, by adding two definitions,
removing one, clarifying some requirements, and making general grammar
and formatting updates.\6\ The EPA provides further detail below
concerning the proposed changes to Rule 02D .0927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Similar to the changes in Rule 02D .0926(n), Rule 02D
.0927(k) also references Rule 02D .0960 which is not in the SIP. DAQ
has withdrawn that reference in Paragraph (k) from the April 13,
2021, SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina has added two definitions and removed one in Rule
02D .0927. First, in Paragraph (a), North Carolina has added a
definition for the term ``Pipeline breakout station'' and consequently
removed the term ``Breakout tank'' and its definition, which referred
to singular storage tanks rather than the facilities containing storage
tanks along pipelines. This change clarifies which specific breakout
tanks are regulated by Rule 02D .0927 (i.e., those located along bulk
gasoline terminal pipelines).\7\ The addition of ``Pipeline breakout
station'' and removal of ``Breakout tank'' has no effect on emissions
as the change only provides more specificity as to where the tanks that
were already regulated by the Rule are located. Lastly, like Rule 02D
.0926, North Carolina has added a definition for ``Cargo tank''. The
term cargo tank replaces the same terms in Rule 02D .0927 that are
replaced in Rule 02D .0926. The addition of ``cargo tank'' is
clarifying in nature for the same reasons outlined in Section II.A,
above. The terms in Paragraph 02D .0927(a) have consequently been
renumbered to account for these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In Paragraph (a)(1), North Carolina has modified the
definition of ``Bulk gasoline terminal'' by replacing the term
``breakout tanks'' with ``a pipeline breakout station'' for
consistency with the modifications to the definition section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina made several clarifying edits to Rule 02D .0927
outside the definitions section in Paragraph (a) which similarly do not
change the meaning of the regulation. In Paragraph (c), North Carolina
has clarified that the owner or operator of a bulk gasoline terminal
must obtain and maintain records of a pre-installation certification
from the manufacturer stating the vapor control efficiency of the
system in use. In Paragraphs [euro] and (f), North Carolina removed the
initial compliance date of December 1, 2002. These paragraphs require
the owner or operator of bulk gasoline terminals to paint all gasoline
storage tanks white or silver and install an external floating roof
tank as a self-supporting roof, such as a geodesic dome. The December
1, 2002, compliance date has passed; therefore, removal of this date
does not alter current regulatory requirements.
    Another clarifying edit specifies in Paragraph (a)(5) that
``gasoline'' refers to a petroleum distillate with an RVP of ``4.0 psi
or greater'' instead of ``four psia or greater.'' The term ``psia'' is
changed to ``psi'' which correctly specifies the RVP of gasoline and is
consistent with the standard abbreviation in the CAA (See, e.g., CAA
section 211(h)).\8\ Paragraph (p)(2) has also been reworded for clarity
to ensure that records on inspections include findings detailing the
location, nature, and severity of each leak. In Paragraph (k), North
Carolina has added cross-references to other SIP-approved rules,
specifically 15 NCAC 02D .0932 and .2615. This modification clarifies
the meaning of what ``certified leak tight'' means for cargo tanks by
referencing the regulatory requirements to certify a cargo tank is leak
tight. North Carolina also changes a citation in the definition for
``Leak'' in Paragraph (a)(6). This citation for a reference method
using a combustible gas detector to detect gas leaks was changed from
15A NCAC 02D .0940 to Appendix B of EPA-450/2-78-051. Since the new
test method is identical to the previous reference, EPA finds this
change acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``psia'' means pounds per square inch absolute,
which refers to the pressure that a gauge would read plus the
addition of atmospheric pressure, which is always present. RVP is
measured in psi (i.e., without the addition of atmospheric
pressure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining changes to Rule 02D .0927 are primarily minor
language edits, reformatting edits, and grammatical corrections. For
example, one language edit throughout the rule changes the formatting
of rules from using the phrase ``Section'' to ``15A NCAC 02D''. Another
edit concerns word preference and changes the word ``usually'' to
``typically''.
    For the reasons discussed above, these proposed changes to the SIP
would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes
to 02D .0927 into the North Carolina SIP.

C. Rule 15A NCAC 02D .0932, Gasoline Cargo Tanks and Vapor Collection
Systems

    North Carolina's April 13, 2021, SIP revision includes changes to
15A NCAC 02D .0932, Gasoline Cargo Tanks and Vapor Collection Systems,
which was revised to update definitions, revise the acceptable methods
for certification, revise recordkeeping requirements, remove obsolete
language, correct grammar, and update the format of references.
    North Carolina has added two definitions and removed two
definitions. First, as with Rules 02D .0926 and 02D .0927, North
Carolina has added a definition for ``Cargo tank'' and replaced several
terms throughout Rule 02D .0932 with the term ``cargo tank.'' This
definition replaces the definition for ``Truck tank,'' which also
referred to the same storage containers used to transport gasoline;
however, the change more accurately describes the storage vessels that
the rule applies to. The EPA preliminarily finds this change to be
clarifying in nature for the same reasons outlined in Section II.A,
above. North Carolina has also replaced the definition of ``Truck tank
vapor collection equipment'' with a definition of ``Cargo tank vapor
collection equipment'' to identify what exactly constitutes the vapor
collection equipment. The new definition is identical to the old one
except for specifying that the term now refers to the vapor collection
equipment for cargo tanks rather than the equipment for truck tanks. As
the new definition more accurately identifies what the Rule applies to,
EPA finds these changes to be clarifying in nature. Paragraph (a) has
been renumbered and reformatted to account for these changes.
    North Carolina has also modified the definition of ``Certified
Facility,'' which it has renamed as ``Cargo tank testing facility'' for
consistency with the newly added definitions. The new definition
removes a cross-reference to Rule 02D .0960, which is not in the SIP
and required certification via a sticker that gasoline cargo tanks had
passed an EPA Appendix A Method 27 (Method 27) (see 40 CFR 63.425) leak
tightness test. Instead, North Carolina is modifying Paragraph (a)(5)
of this rule to cite to Subpart F of 49 CFR part 107. The modification
would require cargo tank testing facilities to comply with the

registration requirements outlined in Subpart F of 49 CFR part 107. As
explained in further detail in Section II.D below, the EPA is proposing
to approve a modification to Rule 02D .2615 that would require the use
of either a Method 27 test or a 49 CFR 180.407 test for leak
tightness.\9\ The effect of these modifications is to eliminate the
North Carolina specific stickers certifying compliance with Method 27,
and instead require certification via a USDOT inspection sticker that
signifies the gasoline cargo tank passed either the Method 27 or 49 CFR
180.407 leak test.10 11 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) program oversees cargo tank testing facilities
that conduct these tests as a part of the USDOT inspection. The USDOT
inspection uses either the 49 CFR 180.407 leak test or Method 27 to
test for leak tightness. Allowing owners and operators of gasoline
cargo tanks to rely on the USDOT inspection sticker to signify passing
the leak test would eliminate a duplicative requirement that owners and
operators go through North Carolina specific inspections in addition to
USDOT inspections. The EPA preliminarily finds this change approvable
because the modification is consistent with changes to the other rules
in this notice and will not impact air quality because the alternative
test is at least as stringent as Method 27, as discussed in Section
II.D of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Therefore, the
change will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS
or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 49 CFR 180.407(h) requires the use of the leak test in 49
CFR 180.407(c) but allows cargo tanks ``used to transport petroleum
distillate fuels that are equipped with vapor collection equipment''
to be leak tested in accordance with Method 27. See 180.407(h)(1)
and (h)(3). However, the ``hydrostatic test alternative, using
liquid in [Method 27] may not be used to satisfy the leak testing
requirements of this paragraph. The test must be conducted using
air.'' See 180.407(h)(3). EPA explains in Section II.D of this NPRM
that the 49 CFR 180.407 test is at least as stringent as the Method
27 test.
    \10\ Rule 02D .0932(c)(2) requires each gasoline cargo tank that
has been certified leak tight to display a sticker near the USDOT
certification plate that complies with the test and inspection
marking requirements outlined in 49 CFR 180.415.
    \11\ 49 CFR 180.415 requires each cargo tank that has
successfully passed the inspection and testing requirements outlined
in 49 CFR 180.407 to be marked near the specification plate or front
head of the cargo tank with the date of the last applicable test or
inspection and an identifier for the type of test or inspection. For
ease of reference, EPA refers to this marking as the ``USDOT
inspection sticker'' throughout this notice. For additional
information, see the May 24, 2023, email from Randy P. Strait, North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to Lynorae Benjamin,
EPA Region 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina has also made a modification to the Rule that
clarifies the meaning of Paragraph (c)(1). In Paragraph (c)(1), cross
references to Rule 02D. 0912 and Section 02D .2600 are removed and
replaced with a cross reference to Rule 02D .2615. The modification
requires a gasoline cargo tank to be certified to be leak tight
pursuant to the test procedures outlined in Rule 02D .2615 and removes
a reference to Rule 02D .0912. These changes are not substantive
because Rule 02D .0912 requires owners or operators of VOC sources to
demonstrate compliance by the methods described in Section 2600, and
Rule 02D .2615 is the only rule in Section 2600 applicable to Rule 02D
.0932.
    North Carolina has also made changes to Paragraphs (c) and (d) that
modify the meaning of those provisions. First, in Paragraphs (c)(5)(A)
through (H), which contain recordkeeping requirements, North Carolina
has updated the information required for recordkeeping. The changes to
the recordkeeping requirements update the paragraph to account for the
49 CFR 180.407 test for leak tightness, include a requirement to
provide information concerning any corrective repairs made to the cargo
tank, and remove the reference to North Carolina specific inspection
stickers certifying compliance with Method 27, consistent with the
change discussed above eliminating the state sticker requirement.
Additionally, the changes require more information in the leak test
records, including but not limited to: (1) contact information of the
cargo tank testing facility, (2) the name and signature of the
individual performing the leak test as well as the owner of the tank,
(3) the identification number of the tank, (4) documentation of the
test date and results, and (5) other information. The new recordkeeping
requirements will comprehensively cover the required information to
determine whether cargo tanks comply with either Method 27 or 49 CFR
180.407. North Carolina has also modified Paragraph (d)(4) to now
require the Director to allow less frequent monitoring if no more than
10 leaks are found after two complete annual checks and require more
frequent monitoring if more than 20 leaks are found. These requirements
were previously discretionary, and the Director could decide whether to
require less or more monitoring. The EPA is proposing to approve this
change because it requires more frequent monitoring if more than 20
leaks are found and because the SIP currently allows the Director to
require less frequent monitoring if no more than 10 leaks are found.
    The remaining changes to Rule 02D .0927 are primarily minor
language edits, reformatting edits, and grammatical corrections. For
example, North Carolina removed the words ``that is'' from the phrase
``that is flush'' in describing how an opening in a storage tank is
connected to the tank bottom. Another change replaces the terminology
``breakout tanks'' with ``pipeline breakout stations'' to reflect the
change in terminology in 02D .0927. North Carolina has also reformatted
how it refers to rules, changing ``Rule .2615'' to ``15A NCAC 02D
.2615,'' for example.
    For the reasons discussed above, these proposed changes to the SIP
would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to
Rule 02D .0932 into the North Carolina SIP.

D. Rule 15A NCAC 02D .2615, Determination of Leak Tightness and Vapor
Leaks

    North Carolina's April 13, 2021, SIP revision includes changes to
15A NCAC 02D .2615, Determination of Leak Tightness and Vapor Leaks.
Specifically, these changes include adding a new test procedure to
determine the leak tightness of cargo tanks, updating a website
reference, and updating the formatting of rule references.
    As mentioned in Section II.C, the SIP revision includes changes to
Rule 02D .2615 to allow gasoline cargo tanks to obtain a leak test
certification using the USDOT 49 CFR 180.407 methodology as an
alternative to Method 27. This change, and the change to Rule 02D
.0932(a)(5) discussed above, center on eliminating the North Carolina
specific inspection stickers certifying the exclusive use of Method 27.
This change allows gasoline cargo tanks receiving leak test
certification to be tested using either the Method 27 or the USDOT 49
CFR 180.407 methodology. Once a cargo tank has passed either leak test,
the owner or operator of the cargo tank must display a USDOT inspection
sticker signifying the gasoline cargo tank has passed. This SIP-
approved rule and the proposed change, if approved by the EPA, do not
impact the applicability of any federal standards that cover these
sources independent of the SIP such as New Source Performance Standards
and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. These
sources must also comply with those federal standards. As an example,
40 CFR part 60, subpart XX, Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline

Terminals, requires each gasoline tank truck subject to this federal
rule to have vapor tightness documentation on file and updated at least
once per year to reflect current test results as determined by Method
27. See 40 CFR 60.505(b). Thus, any gasoline tank truck subject to
subpart XX must annually determine its vapor tightness using EPA
Reference Method 27, and no other testing options are available for
meeting the vapor tightness documentation requirement of subpart XX.
    The purpose of the Method 27 and USDOT leak tests is to detect tank
leaks of volatile vapors (i.e., fugitive VOCs) while under pressure
during product loading. The USDOT tests are performed by certified
inspectors registered with USDOT who are held to strict record keeping
practices. See 49 CFR 180.409; 40 CFR 180.417. The registered
inspectors perform both the USDOT leak test as well as the Method 27
test, which under 49 CFR 180.407, can be performed as an alternative
for those cargo tanks equipped with vapor collection equipment
dedicated to the transportation of petroleum distillate fuels. See 49
CFR 180.407(h)(2). The primary change to North Carolina's cargo tank
certification program is to allow reliance on the certification of test
facilities by the FMCSA, rather than to require reliance on a
duplicative state-specific program to ensure that cargo tanks do not
leak. USDOT and the North Carolina rule both will continue to require
gasoline cargo tanks to be tested annually and certified leak tight.
    North Carolina's SIP revision includes a demonstration showing that
the tests are comparable in identifying repairs necessary to correct
leaks and that the change does not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The two leak test methods are similar in that
each method requires the cargo tank to be pressurized to check for
leaks. The main difference is that the USDOT method requires pressure
testing of each chamber of a cargo tank, whereas Method 27 requires
pressure testing of the whole tank by opening the chambers.\12\
Although chamber by chamber pressure testing takes longer, it
identifies leak locations for repair better than Method 27. Cargo tanks
typically contain three or more chambers for fuel. The EPA anticipates
that many gasoline cargo tanks in North Carolina will continue to use
Method 27 since it takes less time than the USDOT method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Method 27 also includes a vacuum test in addition to the
pressure test. The USDOT rule only allows the use of Method 27 for
cargo tanks equipped with vapor collection equipment transporting
petroleum distillate fuels. See 49 CFR 180.407(h)(2) and footnote
10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has reviewed the demonstration provided by North Carolina
in the April 13, 2021, submittal and agrees that that rule changes
would not increase VOC emissions \13\ or interfere with attainment and
maintenance of any NAAQS. Regarding the NAAQS pollutant ozone, North
Carolina is a nitrogen oxide (NOX) limited jurisdiction,
which means ozone formation is limited to the amount of NOX
available in the ambient air, not the amount of VOC. Therefore, EPA
does not expect this to have an appreciable impact on ground level
ozone formation. Furthermore, the proposed rule changes would have no
impact on the direct emissions of any NAAQS pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ VOCs are precursors to the NAAQS for ozone and particulate
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above and in North Carolina's
noninterference demonstration, the changes to Rule 02D .2615 would not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of the
NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The revised
program will reduce the burden of a duplicative leak inspection for
cargo tank owners as they will only be required to test and obtain a
single certification sticker.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference as discussed
in paragraph II, A-D of this preamble. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following North Carolina rules in 15A NCAC Subchapter
02D: Rule 02D .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants (state effective November 1,
2020); Rule 02D .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals (state effective
November 1, 2020); Rule 02D .0932, Gasoline Cargo Tanks and Vapor
Collection Systems (state effective October 1, 2020); and Rule 02D
.2615, Determination of Leak Tightness and Vapor Leaks (state effective
October 1, 2020). The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available at the EPA Region 4 office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's April 13, 2021,
SIP revision to incorporate changes to North Carolina's bulk gasoline
plant, terminal, and vapor recovery system rules into the SIP.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the changes as described to
02D .0926, Bulk Gasoline Plants; 02D .0927, Bulk Gasoline Terminals;
02D .0932, Gasoline Cargo Tanks and Vapor Recovery Collection Systems;
and 02D .2615, Determination of Leak Tightness and Vapor Leaks. EPA is
proposing to approve these changes because they meet CAA requirements
and would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment or reasonable further progress.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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); and
     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.

    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 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.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    NCDEQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the
nature of the action being proposed here, this proposed action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color,
low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 6, 2023.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-12601 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Petition Number, PP# 5E8350

	EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP# 5E8350, from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide and its metabolite 4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile (CA), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of cyazofamid in or on the following raw agricultural commodity: Herb subgroup 19A at 90 parts per million (ppm);  Upon approval of the aforementioned tolerance, IR-4 requests to remove from 40 CFR 180.601, the established tolerance for residues of cyazofamid in or on basil, dried leaves at 90 ppm and basil, fresh leaves at 30 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

Plant metabolism. The plant metabolism of cyazofamid is understood for the purposes of this petition.  The proposed metabolic pathways in plants (tomato, potato and grape) are identical.  Nature of the residue studies showed that other than parent cyazofamid, no single identifiable residue represents more than about 7% of the total radioactive residue.  The nature of the residue studies showed that cyazofamid was the major identifiable residue with low levels of CCIM.  The tolerance expression for the proposed crops, will include parent, cyazofamid, and the metabolite CCIM.

	2. Analytical method. Residues of cyazofamid and CCIM were extracted from samples (2.5 g for fresh chives; and 1 g for dried chives) with acetonitrile.  The combined extracts were partitioned with hexane and then reduced to near dryness.  The residues were dissolved in 20% acetonitrile/water and passed through a solid phase extraction column (SPE).  The residues were eluted with 60/40 acetonitrile/water and then diluted in 50/50 acetonitrile/water.  The samples were quantitated by LC/MS/MS.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Chives: A total of six (6) field trials and three (3) greenhouse trials were conducted on chives during the 2010 growing season.  Nine (9) foliar applications were applied at 7 (+1) day intervals at the target rate of 0.078 lb. a.i./A for a total of approximately 0.702 lb. a.i./A/season.  Chives were harvested at 0 day PHI.  One decline trial was included with sampling at 0, 3, 7, 10 and 14 days after the last application.  The results show that the maximum total residue (cyazofamid + CCIM) after nine applications of cyazofamid with a 0 day PHI in fresh chives was 3.6 ppm and in dried chives was 14.8 ppm.  (Basil is currently approved at the tolerances of 30 ppm for fresh and 90 ppm for dried basil.)

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Results from a battery of acute toxicity studies place technical cyazofamid in Toxicity Category IV for oral LD50, inhalation LC50 and eye irritation, and Category III for dermal irritation and dermal LD50.  Technical cyazofamid was determined to be a weak dermal sensitizer. In an acute neurotoxicity study, no treatment related effects were observed at any dose.  The NOEL was 2,000 mg/kg bw.

	2. Genotoxicty. A battery of five tests has been conducted to assess the genotoxic potential of technical cyazofamid.  Assays conducted included in vitro reverse gene mutation tests in bacteria and in vitro forward gene mutation test in a mammalian cell system, a chromosomal damage test in mammalian cells, a DNA repair test in bacteria, and an in vivo micronucleus test in mice. Cyazofamid did not elicit a genotoxic response in any of the studies conducted.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a two-generation reproductive toxicity study, the only effects observed were body weight effects which were observed at 20,000 ppm in dams during gestation and lactation and in weanling pups.  No reproductive effects were observed.  The NOEL for reproductive effects was 20,000 ppm (1,338 mg/kg bw/day).  The NOEL for parental toxicity was 2,000 ppm (134 mg/kg bw/day).
In a rat developmental study, pregnant rats were dosed by gavage with cyazofamid from Days 0 to 19 of gestation.  There were no treatment-related effects observed in the study.  The NOEL for maternal effects was 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.  Due to the increased incidence of bent ribs, a reversible developmental anomaly, in fetuses treated at the highest dose, the developmental NOEL was set conservatively at 100 mg/kg bw/day.
In a rabbit developmental study, pregnant rabbits were dosed by gavage with cyazofamid on Days 4 to 28 of gestation.  There were no treatment-related effects observed in the study.  The NOEL for maternal and developmental effects was 1000 mg/kg bw/day.
The developmental studies (prenatal developmental studies in rat and rabbit and the two generation reproduction study in rat) provided no indication of increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits from in utero or post-natal exposure to cyazofamid.  Cyazofamid is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. The oral toxicity of cyazofamid was investigated in rats and dogs in 13-week studies.  The exposure was by dietary administration for the rats and by capsule for the dogs.  There were no treatment-related effects observed in dogs up to 1,000 mg/kg bw/day which was the highest dose tested.  In rats, treated at 5,000 ppm there was a treatment related increase in kidney and liver weights and increased observation of basophilic tubules.  The latter was observed only in males.   The NOEL was 500 ppm which was equivalent to a dosage of 29.9 mg/kg bw/day to males and 33.3 mg/kg bw/day to females.

	5. Chronic toxicity. A combined chronic and oncogenicity study was conducted in rats.  Cyazofamid was administered continuously for a period of 104 weeks to male and female Fischer rats.  Cyazofamid was not carcinogenic in this study.  The NOEL for chronic effects was 5000 ppm (171 mg/kg bw/day).
In a long-term feeding study, mice were dosed with cyazofamid in the diet for 78 weeks.  There was no evidence of carcinogenicity.  The NOEL was 700 ppm (94.8 mg/kg bw/day for males) based on increased incidence of skin lesions in the high dose animals.
In a chronic dog study, four groups of six dogs/sex/group received cyazofamid via capsule for 52 weeks. The NOEL was determined as 200 mg/kg bw/day based on increased cysts in parathyroids in both sexes and increased pituitary cysts in females at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.

	6. Animal metabolism. Studies on the metabolism of cyazofamid in animals using radioactive test material have been conducted with cyazofamid, labeled with [14]C in two positions, the benzene [[14]C-Bz]- or imidazole [[14]C-Im] position.  Absorption is rapid, but the percentage of Cyazofamid absorbed after an oral dosage decreases as the dosage is increased. All absorbed radiocarbon is rapidly eliminated with urinary and biliary elimination of radiocarbon nearly complete within 24 hours. The metabolic pathway of cyazofamid includes the rapid hydrolysis of the dimethylsulfonamide group and the oxidation of the benzyl methyl group.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Comparison of the metabolism of cyazofamid by plants and in animals indicates that a number of the identified metabolites are common to both plants and animals but metabolism in plants is more extensive than in animals.  The data indicate that the final products of the metabolism of cyazofamid in animals and plants represent differences in the extent of metabolism.  Several of the metabolites resulting from cyazofamid are similar in plants and animals and, therefore, have already been evaluated toxicologically.

	8. Endocrine disruption. An evaluation of the potential effects on the endocrine systems of mammals has not been determined; however, no evidence of such effects was reported in subchronic, chronic or reproductive toxicology. There was no observed pathological finding of the endocrine organs in these studies, and there were no reproductive effects at the maximum dose tested of 20,000 ppm.  There is no evidence at this time that cyazofamid causes endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.  Potential dietary exposures from food were estimated for all proposed and established tolerances for the crops listed below, using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID[TM]) version 2.16, and percent crop treated of 100%.  The following raw agricultural commodities were included: beans, snap and lima; leafy greens (subgroup 4A); brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (crop group 5) including turnip greens; carrots; cucurbits (crop group 9); fruiting vegetables (crop groups 8-10); tuberous and corm vegetables (subgroup 1C); grapes; basil; chives; and hops.
For chronic dietary exposure, the chronic reference dose (RfD) of 0.95 mg/kg bw/day was proposed by EPA for humans, based on the NOAEL from the mouse carcinogenicity study (94.5 mg/kg bw/day) and dividing by an uncertainty factor of 100.  The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is also 0.95 mg/kg bw/day since the FQPA safety factor is 1 for cyazofamid.
For acute dietary exposure, the acute RfD of 1.0 mg/kg bw/day was based on the NOAEL of 100 mg/kg bw/day from the rat developmental toxicity study adjusted by the uncertainty factor of 100.  The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) is also 1 mg/kg bw/day since the cyazofamid FQPA safety factor is 1.

	i. Food. Tier 1 chronic and acute dietary exposure analyses were conducted for cyazofamid in/on the crops noted above to determine the exposure contribution of these commodities to the diet and to ascertain the chronic and acute risk potential.  The estimates were based on current and proposed tolerance level residues for all crops, potato and tomato processing studies, conservative market share assumptions of 100% crop treated, and consumption data from the USDA's CSFII (1994 through 1996 and 1998) continuing survey of food intake.  Since specific processing studies demonstrated that residues were unlikely to concentrate in processed commodities, no adjustment for processing factors was necessary.
Even using all of the worst case exposure scenarios listed above, the Tier 1 chronic dietary (food + drinking water) exposure estimates resulted in an estimated exposure for the general U.S. population of 0.007364 mg/kg bw/day.  This exposure corresponds to 0.8% of the cPAD of 0.95 mg/kg bw/day.  The highest exposure estimate calculated was for the subgroup, children 1-2 years old.  This exposure was determined to be 0.012948 mg/kg bw/day (1.4% of the cPAD).
A Tier 1 acute dietary exposure assessment was performed for the subpopulation of females aged 13-49 years old only, since the only endpoint of concern was from the rat prenatal developmental study.  The acute dietary exposure estimate for females aged 13-49 is 0.022706 mg/kg bw/day, well below HED's level of concern at the 95th percentile.   This is equivalent to 2.27% of the aPAD.

It can be concluded that acute or long-term dietary exposure to cyazofamid through residues on treated beans, snap and lima, leafy greens (subgroup 4A), brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5), including turnip greens, carrots, cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9), fruiting vegetables (Crop Group 8-10), tuberous and corm vegetables (subgroup 1C), grapes, herbs (Crop Subgroup 19A), and hops, should not be of cause for concern.

	ii. Drinking water. Since cyazofamid is intended for application outdoors to turf, ornamentals, and field grown crops, the potential exists for parent and or metabolites to reach ground or surface water that may be used for drinking water.  EPA assumed drinking water concentrations of 133 ppb and 136 ppb for the chronic and acute assessments, respectively, based on modeling of potential surface water residues of CTCA (the terminal degradate of cyazofamid) for the turf/ornamental use.  Because the application rates for the proposed uses are lower than the rate for turf/ornamentals, the turf use represents the worst-case for potential drinking water residues.  Therefore, these estimates of drinking water were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

	2. Non-dietary exposure.

Cyazofamid can be applied to commercially treated residential turf and ornamentals only.  Therefore, non-occupational exposure of cyazofamid to the general population is not expected, however, postapplication exposure is possible.  For Dermal Short-Term exposure, no toxicity was found at 1000 mg/kg in a 28-day dermal toxicity study, therefore, in the absence of any hazard identified for children, a risk assessment was not necessary.  The residential dermal MOE for adults of 1,100, based on 2 hours of extensive contact with the turf, was used to calculate the adult short-term aggregate risk assessment in the EPA assessment. EPA calculated non-occupational/residential MOEs for the day of application.
The post application children's MOE (including incidental oral exposures) from residential lawns is 1,600.  All MOEs, including children's aggregate, are greater than 100, and therefore, are not of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

Cyazofamid is a cyanoimidazole fungicide.  Since there are no other members of this class of fungicides, it is considered unlikely that cyazofamid would have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other pesticide in use at this time.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Dietary and occupational exposure will be the major routes of exposure to the U.S. population. Ample margins of safety have been demonstrated for both situations. For the general U.S. population, the chronic dietary exposure to cyazofamid is 0.007364 mg/kg bw/day, which utilizes less than 1% of the RfD for the overall U.S. population, assuming 100% of the crops are treated. A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted because this product has been classified as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
An acute aggregate risk assessment was conducted for the population subgroup of concern, females 13-49 years old.  Since an appropriate endpoint for the general population was not identified, a corresponding assessment is not required for any other population subgroup.  For this subgroup, the acute dietary (food and drinking water) risk assessment reported above as 0.022706 mg/kg bw/day (95th percentile), 2.27% of the aPAD, represents the acute aggregate risk since the dietary route alone is relevant for acute exposure and risk assessment.
The short-term aggregate risk is made up of average dietary exposures from food and drinking water sources as well as from dermal and oral residential exposure.   Potential inhalation exposure was not considered since it is negligible when assessing re-entry risks.  The aggregate short-term MOE for the US general population is 1018.

Using only pesticide handlers exposure data base (PHED) data levels A and B (those with a high level of confidence), the margins of exposure (MOE) for occupational exposure are 341 to 98,000 for use on turf and ornamentals and of 23,000 to 220,000 for use on crops.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure of residues of cyazofamid including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non-occupational exposures.

	2. Infants and children. As noted above, chronic dietary exposure of the most highly exposed subgroup in the population, children, 1-2 years old, is 0.022706 mg/kg bw/day or 2.27% of the RfD.  The short-term aggregate risk MOE for children (food and residential) is 1325. Thus, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from acute or chronic exposure to Cyazofamid.

Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the lack of toxicological endpoints of special concern, the lack of any indication of greater sensitivity of children, and the conservative exposure assessment, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure to residues of cyazofamid from all anticipated sources of dietary and non-occupational exposure.

F. International Tolerances

Presently, there is no Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) established for residues of cyazofamid on any crop.  The following Canadian tolerances have been established: Carrots, 0.09 ppm; Potatoes, 0.02 ppm; and Tomatoes (Import), 0.2 ppm; Cucurbits, 0.1 ppm; Grape (Import), 1.2 ppm; and Spinach, 9.0 ppm.