EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0563; FRL-9902-18-Region 4], 64896-64905 [2013-25782]
Download as PDF
64896
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
0924. For service information related to this
AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited,
Commodore House, Mountbatten Business
Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton
SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44
20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email:
info@bnaircraft.com; Internet: https://
www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/.
You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329–4148.
this SIP revision is a prerequisite for
EPA’s consideration of an amendment
to the regulations to remove the
aforementioned portions of the Triangle
Area from the list of areas that are
currently subject to the Federal 7.8 psi
RVP requirements. In addition, EPA is
also proposing to approve changes to
the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) used in the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan for the Triangle Area.
The use of new models and the
relaxation of the RVP requirement has
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
resulted in a revised safety margin
October 23, 2013.
which North Carolina is reallocating
Earl Lawrence,
among the MVEBs associated the
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Maintenance Plan. EPA has
Certification Service.
preliminarily determined that North
Carolina’s March 27, 2013, SIP revision
[FR Doc. 2013–25703 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am]
with respect to the changes to the
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
modeling and associated technical
demonstration associated with the
State’s request for the removal of the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Federal RVP requirements, and with
AGENCY
respect to the updated MVEBs, is
40 CFR Part 52
consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0563; FRL–9902– Act). Should EPA decide to remove the
18–Region 4]
subject portions of the Triangle Area
from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi
Approval and Promulgation of
Federal RVP requirements, such action
Implementation Plans; North Carolina: will occur in a subsequent rulemaking.
Non-Interference Demonstration for
DATES: Written comments must be
Removal of Federal Low-Reid Vapor
received on or before November 29,
Pressure Requirement for the Raleigh- 2013.
Durham-Chapel Hill Area
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
Agency (EPA).
R04–OAR–2013–0563 by one of the
following methods:
ACTION: Proposed rule.
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
on-line instructions for submitting
the State of North Carolina’s March 27,
comments.
2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP)
2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov.
revision to the State’s approved
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
Maintenance Plan for the Raleigh4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0563,
Durham-Chapel Hill (Triangle) 1997 8Regulatory Development Section, Air
hour Ozone Maintenance Area.
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Specifically, North Carolina’s revision,
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
including updated modeling, shows that Environmental Protection Agency,
the Triangle Area would continue to
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
standard if the currently applicable
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms.
Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
standard for gasoline from 7.8 pounds
Development Section, Air Planning
per square inch (psi) were modified to
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
9.0 psi for three portions (Wake and
Management Division, U.S.
Durham Counties, and a portion of
Environmental Protection Agency,
Granville County) of the ‘‘Triangle
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Area’’ of North Carolina during the
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
high-ozone season. The State has
deliveries are only accepted during the
included a technical demonstration
Regional Office’s normal hours of
with the revision to demonstrate that a
operation. The Regional Office’s official
less-stringent RVP standard of 9.0 psi in hours of business are Monday through
these areas would not interfere with
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
continued maintenance of the 1997 8Federal holidays.
hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Quality Standards (NAAQS) or any
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
other applicable standard. Approval of
0563. EPA’s policy is that all comments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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.
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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
(404) 562–9043, or via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is being proposed?
II. What is the background of the Triangle
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. Mobile Source Inventories and Motor
Vehicle Emission Budgets Update
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What is being proposed?
The Triangle 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 December 26, 2007. See 72
FR 72948. This rulemaking proposes to
approve a revision to the 1997 8-hour
ozone Maintenance Plan for the Triangle
Area submitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NC DENR). Specifically, EPA
is proposing to approve changes to the
maintenance plan, including updated
modeling, that show that the Triangle
Area can continue to maintain the 1997
ozone standard without reliance on
emission reductions based upon the use
of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in any
of the Triangle 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
Triangle 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 Maintenance
Plan Areas during the high ozone season
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 Triangle Area. While EPA evaluates the
approvability of North Carolina’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
Triangle Area is made at the discretion of the
Administrator.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
would not interfere with other
applicable requirements.
The new modeling conducted by
North Carolina to account for the
proposed relaxation of the applicable
RVP standard in a portion of the
Triangle Area also results in changes to
the safety margin associated with the
maintenance plan.2 As such, the North
Carolina revision includes a reallocation
of the safety margin among the NOx
MVEBs for the Triangle Area. EPA is
also proposing approval of this revision.
This preamble is hereafter organized
into five parts. Section II provides the
background of the Triangle 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
Triangle Area. Finally, Section VI
describes the changes to the MVEBs
associated with Maintenance Plan for
the Triangle Area and provides EPA’s
analysis regarding the proposed
revision.
II. What is the background of the
Triangle Area?
In 1991, the Triangle Area was
designated as a moderate nonattainment
area pursuant to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991). Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
the Triangle nonattainment area was
composed of Durham and Wake
Counties, and the Dutchville Township
portion of Granville County. 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 its
nonattainment designation, gasoline
sold in the Triangle 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 Triangle
Area, on April 18, 1994, the Area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1hour ozone standard, based on 1989–
1992 ambient air quality monitoring
data. See 59 FR 18300. North Carolina’s
2 In addition to a less stringent RVP standard, the
new modeling also utilizes updated models for onroad and off-road mobile emission sources.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64897
redesignation request for the 1-hour
ozone Triangle Area did not, however,
include a request for the Area to be
removed from the list of areas subject to
the 7.8 psi RVP standard. As such, the
7.8 RVP requirement remained in place
for Durham and Wake Counties, and the
Dutchville Township portion of
Granville County when the Triangle
Area was designated nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the
Triangle Area was expanded from
Durham and Wake Counties, and the
Dutchville Township portion of
Granville County, to also include
Franklin, Johnston, Orange, and Person
Counties, the remainder of Granville
County and Baldwin, Center, New Hope
and Williams Townships in Chatham
County. See 69 FR 23857. In 2007, the
Triangle Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 72 FR 72948, December 26,
2007. The Triangle Area was later
designated as attainment for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088,
May 21, 2012.
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 gasolinepowered 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 groundlevel 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 twophase nationwide program, which was
designed to reduce the volatility of
commercial gasoline during the high
ozone 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
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64898
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 we 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 limits of CAA
section 211(h).3 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: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/
gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
As explained in the December 12,
1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II
rulemaking, EPA believes that
relaxation of an applicable RVP
standard in a nonattainment area 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
3 See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990), 56 FR 24242
(May 29, 1991) and 56 FR 64704 (Dec. 12, 1991).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
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 Triangle 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 Triangle 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 March 27, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 March 27, 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 Triangle 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 Triangle 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 Triangle
area.4
V. What is EPA’s analysis of North
Carolina’s submittal?
a. Overall Preliminary Non-Interference
Analyses Conclusions for North
Carolina’s Request for the Revision of
the Maintenance Plan
As discussed above, on March 27,
2013, NC DENR submitted a revision to
the existing maintenance plan for the
Triangle 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance area. Specifically, NC
DENR revised the modeling for on-road
mobile, off-road mobile, and area source
emissions. The modeling was revised to
show the emission changes that would
result from relaxing the gasoline RVP
requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for
the Triangle Area during the high ozone
season. North Carolina’s March 27,
2013, SIP revision also included 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 proposed change to the applicable
RVP requirement, EPA is making the
preliminary determination that the
relevant NAAQS 5 for consideration in
the non-interference demonstration
required by section 110(l) of the CAA
4 While EPA evaluates the approvability of North
Carolina’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 Triangle Area is made at the
discretion of the Administrator.
5 The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes
health and welfare based standards are CO, lead,
NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2.
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
are the ozone, particulate matter and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards.
VOC and NOX emissions are
precursors for ozone and particulate
matter (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 carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS. Typically, EPA would not
expect the CO NAAQS to be affected by
a change 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
change would have any impact on those
NAAQS. Additionally, the Triangle
Area is currently designated attainment
for the lead NAAQS, and is continuing
to attain the standard. As for the SO2
NAAQS, the Triangle 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 changes
to the RVP requirements on the ozone,
particulate matter, NO2 and CO NAAQS.
To determine the emissions reviewed
in the technical demonstration included
with the March 27, 2013, SIP revision,
NC DENR compared the 2005 baseline
emissions inventory to the 2017
projected emissions inventory. The
baseline emissions inventory represents
an emission level for a period when the
applicable ambient air quality standard
was not violated, 2004–2006. NC DENR
concluded that if projected emissions
remain at or below the baseline
emissions, continued maintenance is
demonstrated and the ambient air
quality standard should not be violated
in the future. In addition to comparing
the final year of the maintenance plan,
NC DENR’s technical demonstration
also compares all of the interim years to
the 2005 baseline to demonstrate that
these years are also expected to show
continued maintenance of all NAAQS.
Also, in North Carolina’s March 27,
2013, SIP revision, NC DENR provided
an updated analysis utilizing the
MOVES model to calculate on-road
emissions that are used as part of the
evaluation of the potential impacts for
the ozone NAAQS that might result
exclusively from changing the high
ozone season RVP requirements from
7.8 psi to the requirement of 9.0 psi.
Relaxation of the RVP standard from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi revealed a slight increase
in emissions of 0.30 tons per day (tpd)
(a 0.20 percent increase) in NOX and
3.88 tpd (a 2.44 percent increase) in
VOC for Durham, Granville and Wake
Counties. While the modeling showed a
slight increase in NOX and VOC
emissions resulting from the use of 9.0
psi RVP as opposed to 7.8 psi, the most
appropriate analysis for purposes of
evaluating non-interference is whether
total area emissions from all emissions
inventory sources (i.e., point and area
stationary, and on-road and non-road
mobile) in the future years would
remain at or below the level determined
to be consistent with maintenance of the
1997 ozone NAAQS. To provide this
full evaluation, the State compared total
man-made emissions of VOC and NOX
for the year 2005 (base year), 2008 and
2011 using a RVP of 7.8 psi (for
Durham, Granville and Wake Counties
only as the remaining Triangle Area
Counties are currently using a RVP of
9.0 psi) to emissions generated for the
years 2014 and 2017, using a RVP of 9.0
psi.
There are four different man-made
emission inventory source
classifications; 1) point, 2) area, 3) onroad mobile and 4) off-road mobile.
Point sources are those stationary
sources that emit more than 10 tons per
year of VOC or 100 tons per year of NOX
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
64899
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. 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. On-road mobile sources are
those vehicles that travel on the
roadways. For on-road mobile sources,
the MOVES model results represent the
new motor vehicle emission budgets for
the Triangle area. Off-road mobile
sources are equipment that can move
but do not use the roadways (e.g., lawn
mowers, construction equipment,
railroad locomotives, and 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 offroad 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 from the change to the RVP
control, the Triangle Area continues to
demonstrate a downward trend in NOX
and VOC emissions through 2017.
Tables 1 and 2 below provide the results
of this analysis for the entire Triangle
Area (including the three Counties
(noted in italics) affected by the
proposed RVP relaxation).
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1—TOTAL MAN-MADE VOC EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE TRIANGLE MAINTENANCE AREA
County
2005
Chatham * .............................................................................
Durham ................................................................................
Franklin ................................................................................
Granville ...............................................................................
Johnston ...............................................................................
Orange .................................................................................
Person ..................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
2008
5.52
25.94
11.81
12.78
30.58
15.42
9.00
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2011
5.57
23.27
11.55
12.38
29.43
14.35
8.65
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
2014
5.23
20.93
11.20
11.98
28.31
13.10
8.32
30OCP1
5.00
19.47
11.14
11.85
27.73
12.13
8.12
2017
4.85
18.31
11.23
11.90
27.57
11.35
8.07
64900
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—TOTAL MAN-MADE VOC EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE TRIANGLE MAINTENANCE AREA—Continued
County
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
Wake ....................................................................................
87.45
81.34
75.61
72.33
69.85
Total ..............................................................................
198.50
186.54
174.68
167.77
163.13
* Emissions for Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County only.
TABLE 2—TOTAL MAN-MADE NOX EMISSIONS (tpd) FOR THE TRIANGLE MAINTENANCE AREA
County
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
Chatham * .............................................................................
Durham ................................................................................
Franklin ................................................................................
Granville ...............................................................................
Johnston ...............................................................................
Orange .................................................................................
Person ..................................................................................
Wake ....................................................................................
5.01
39.48
7.68
10.94
34.22
23.37
37.48
106.52
4.44
35.16
6.55
8.98
28.94
20.64
31.38
98.12
3.79
28.45
5.37
7.01
23.19
16.53
31.20
83.82
3.17
23.52
4.49
5.56
19.32
13.52
31.02
69.97
2.73
19.73
3.82
4.57
16.47
11.31
29.72
59.06
Total ..............................................................................
264.70
234.21
199.36
170.57
147.41
* Emissions for Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County only.
As Table 1 and 2 indicate, NOX and
VOC emissions in the Triangle Area will
continue to decrease, even with the
increase in high ozone season fuel RVP
to 9.0 psi. The slight increase in
emissions is being mitigated area-wide
by a steady decrease in tailpipe
emissions, which is the result of cleaner
new vehicle fleet replacing the older
fleet and other Federal and State
emissions reduction programs. As
discussed below, based on this data,
together with air quality data, and
maintenance demonstrations and
attainment designations for the NAAQS,
EPA is making the preliminary
determination that the slight increase in
NOX and VOC emissions resulting from
this change will not interfere with the
Area’s ability to maintain the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS, or any other
applicable requirement. More details on
the individual non-interference analyses
for the ozone, PM, NO2 and CO NAAQS
are provided below.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Non-Interference Analysis for the
Ozone NAAQS
Effective June 15, 2004, the Triangle
Area was designated as nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
primary precursors for ozone are VOC
and NOX emissions. As a previous 1hour ozone nonattainment area, Durham
and Wake Counties and a portion of
Granville County in the Triangle Area
were already subject to the Federal RVP
requirements for high ozone season
gasoline to aid the Area with
compliance with the ozone NAAQS.
Although originally implemented for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Federal
RVP requirements continued to apply to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
Durham and Wake Counties and a
portion of Granville County for the 1997
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and are
still in effect.
On June 7, 2007, NC DENR submitted
a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. NC DENR used the
MOBILE6.2 mobile source emissions
model to estimate the emissions for onroad sources and NONROAD2005c nonroad mobile model for off-road sources.
In the years 2014 and 2017, NC DENR
projected a reduction from the 2005
base year inventory of approximately 38
percent and 45 percent (respectively) in
NOX emissions (in tpd). The projected
reduction of VOC emissions (in tpd) for
the years 2014 and 2017 is
approximately 36 percent and 44
percent, respectively, from the 2005
base year emissions inventory.
There is an overall downward trend
in ozone concentration in the Triangle
Area that can be attributed to Federal
and State programs that have led to
significant emissions reductions. On
December 26, 2007, (72 FR 72948), EPA
approved North Carolina’s 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle
Area, and redesignated the Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The Triangle Area is
continuing to meet the 1-hour and 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS,6 and is meeting
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based
on recent air quality monitoring data.
6 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The 2008 ozone NAAQS is met when
the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average concentration,
averaged over 3 years is 75 parts per
million (ppm) or less.
As mentioned above, on December 26,
2007 (72 FR 72948), EPA approved
North Carolina’s June 7, 2007,
maintenance plan for the Triangle Area.
This maintenance plan contained
MVEBs for NOX and an insignificance
determination for VOC contribution
from motor vehicles to the 8-hour ozone
pollution in the Triangle Area. For the
purposes of regional emissions analysis,
the information provided by North
Carolina supported EPA’s determination
that VOC contribution to 8-hour ozone
pollution from motor vehicles in the
Triangle Area as insignificant for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, the future on-road VOC
emissions were projected to be less than
10 percent in the Triangle Area, in the
context of the total SIP inventory.
According to information provided by
North Carolina, biogenic emissions
account for approximately 90 percent of
the VOC emissions in future years in the
Triangle Area.
In addition, North Carolina conducted
a emissions sensitivity analysis that
indicated that 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone levels in the Triangle Area were
not impacted by reductions in manmade VOC emissions (e.g., reductions
from motor vehicles). Specifically, the
photochemical model was run for a 39day scenario in 2009 with a 30 percent
reduction in all man-made VOC
emissions. In addition, two mobile
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ppm and the preliminary 2011–2013
design value is 0.071 ppm for this Area.
EPA also evaluated the potential
increase in the VOC and NOX precursor
emissions, and whether it is reasonable
to conclude that the requested change to
RVP requirements in Durham, Granville
and Wake Counties during the high
ozone season would cause the Area to
be out of compliance with the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS.
In light of the current designations,
monitoring and emissions data, and the
source specific sensitivity simulations 7
were conducted by NCDAQ over a 7-day
period to specifically focus on the
impact of mobile source emissions on
ozone formation. None of these
emissions sensitivity simulations
resulted in a significant response in
ozone formation. This supports the
State’s proposal that the highway
mobile VOC emissions are insignificant
contributors to ozone formation.
The current design value for ozone for
the Triangle Area for 2010–2012 is 0.075
64901
submitted modeling, including the fact
that the NOX emissions inventories are
projected to continue to significantly
decrease,8 EPA has preliminarily
determined that North Carolina’s
revision of the maintenance plan to no
longer rely on gasoline with 7.8 psi RVP
requirement in Durham, Granville and
Wake Counties will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS. As Table 3 indicates the design
value (DV) for the Triangle Area shows
that the Area is meeting the NAAQS.
TABLE 3—TRIANGLE AREA DESIGN VALUE
2004–2006 DV
(ppm)
2005–2007 DV
(ppm)
2006–2008 DV
(ppm)
2007–2009 DV
(ppm)
2008–2010 DV
(ppm)
2009–2011 DV
(ppm)
2010–2012 DV
(ppm)
0.080 ................................
0.081
0.080
0.077
0.074
0.073
0.075
c. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM
NAAQS
The precursors for PM2.5 are NOX,
SO2, VOC and ammonia. For the
Triangle Area, on-road mobile, off-road
mobile and area sources are not believed
to be large contributors to directly
emitted fine particulate matter less than
2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) or indirectly
formed PM2.5 concentrations. As
mentioned earlier in this rulemaking,
the RVP requirements result in
emissions benefits for VOC and NOX so
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 March 27,
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 18 December 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,
off-road and area sources combined,
while the remaining 96.7 percent came
from point sources.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3) based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time,
EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS
of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations,
and promulgated a new 24-hour
NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 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 mg/m3
based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time,
EPA retained the 2006 24-hour NAAQS
at 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations.
On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), all
counties in the Triangle Area were
designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, and on
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), all
counties in the Triangle Area were
designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As
Table 4 indicates the PM2.5 annual and
24-hour design values demonstrate
attainment of the respective NAAQS
and those for the annual standard have
been decreasing.
TABLE 4—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES
Year
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
Annual Standard
Design Value ...............................................................................................................................
10.4
9.8
10.0
22
22
22
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
24-hour Standard
Design Value ...............................................................................................................................
In light of the fact that a change to the
NC Maintenance Plan to no longer rely
on gasoline with a 7.8 psi RVP
requirement will only result in a slight
increase in VOC and NOX emissions,
EPA has preliminarily determined that
a change to the Federal RVP
requirement for Durham, Granville and
Wake Counties would not interfere with
7 One simulation ran a 50 percent increase in
mobile source emissions in the Triangle ozone
nonattainment counties and the second ran a 50
percent decrease in mobile source emissions in the
counties.
8 Future decreases in the inventory are an order
of magnitude greater than the increases associated
with the change in RVP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
64902
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
the Triangle Area maintaining the 1997
PM2.5 annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards.
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 Triangle Area,
were designated unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
Based on North Carolina’s March 27,
2013, SIP revision, EPA has evaluated
the potential increase in the NOX
emissions (approximately a quarter of a
ton per day between June 1st and
September 15th) and whether it is
reasonable to believe that North
Carolina’s requested change for its high
ozone season RVP requirement would
cause the Area to be out of compliance
with the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The slight
increase in NOX emissions is being
mitigated by a steady decrease in
tailpipe emissions,9 which is the result
of cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing
the older fleet. See table 2 above.
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, EPA has preliminarily
determined that a change to the Federal
RVP requirements for the Triangle Area
would not interfere with the continued
decline in NOX emissions, nor with
attainment or maintenance of the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
e. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO
NAAQS
Durham and Wake Counties in the
Triangle Area were previously
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour
CO NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991. Subsequently,
Durham and Wake Counties attained the
8-hour CO NAAQS and was
redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment. On August 2, 1995, EPA
redesignated Durham and Wake
Counties to attainment for the 8-hour
CO NAAQS based on the measured air
quality data and the 10-year
maintenance plan submitted. See 60 FR
39258. The 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm
and the 1-hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm.
Monitoring data from 2009–2012 shows
Wake County is well below the 8-hour
CO NAAQS values as listed in Table 5.
TABLE 5—CO 8-HOUR MONITORED CONCENTRATION NAAQS
[ppm]
County
Monitor ID
2009
2010
2011
2012
8-hr NAAQS
Wake ....................................................................................
371830014
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.9
1-hr NAAQS
Wake ....................................................................................
Based upon the revised modeling
associated with the proposed relaxation
of the RVP standard in the three
portions of the Triangle Area currently
371830014
subject to the more stringent standard,
it is estimated that Triangle Area onroad CO emissions will increase
approximately 6.3 tons per day in 2014
and 2017. This projected increase
represents an increase in the total
inventory of less than 1 percent.
TABLE 6—2010 CO EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY) FOR MAINTENANCE AREAS
County
Point source
Area source
On-road
Non-road
Total
Raleigh-Durham Maintenance Area
0.97
1.17
1.54
4.26
186.00
642.97
19.04
70.62
207.55
719.02
Total ..............................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Durham ................................................................................
Wake ....................................................................................
2.14
5.80
828.97
89.66
926.57
In light of the slight increase in CO
emissions, and the existing air quality
data showing a wide margin of
compliance with the CO NAAQS, EPA
has preliminarily determined that a
change to the Federal RVP requirement
for Durham, Granville and Wake
Counties would not interfere with the
Raleigh-Durham Area maintaining the
CO standards. As Table 5 above
indicates the CO design value is well
below the standard.
9 See
table 2 above.
the December 26, 2007 final rule EPA also
approved NC DENR’s determination that on-road
10 In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
VI. Mobile Source Inventories and
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
Update
a. Background
On June 7, 2007, the State of North
Carolina, through NC DENR, submitted
a final request for EPA to: (1)
Redesignate the Triangle Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard; and (2) approve a North
Carolina SIP revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Triangle Area.
emissions of VOCs are insignificant for
transportation conformity purposes. We are not
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
On December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72948),
EPA approved the redesignation request
for the Triangle Area. Additionally, EPA
approved the 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan including NOX
MVEBs for the Triangle Area.10 These
approvals were based on EPA’s
determination that the State of North
Carolina had demonstrated that the
Triangle Area met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in
the CAA, including the determination
addressing that insignificance finding in today’s
proposal.
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
that the entire Triangle Area had
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
At the time of original redesignation
request, the on-road motor vehicle
inventory was generating by the
MOBILE6.2 model, which at the time
was the current MVEB model. The
proposed change to the maintenance
plan discussed above includes a MVEB
generated by the MOVES model which
has since replaced MOBILE6.2 model.
In addition, the model used to calculate
the original non-road inventory
(NONROAD2005c) has also since been
updated by a new non-road inventory
model (NONROAD2008a).
As a result of these new models and
the revised emission associated with a
relaxed RVP standard, the safety
margin 11 calculations provided in the
revised maintenance plan have changes
from the previous margins included
with the original maintenance plan.
Therefore, North Carolina’s revision
includes a reallocation of the safety
margin to the NOX MVEB based upon
the revised calculations. EPA’s
preliminary analysis of these changes is
described below.
b. On-Road Inventory
As discussed above, the on-road
motor vehicle emissions in the revised
maintenance plan are calculated using
the MOVES model. The MOVES model
uses the road class vehicle miles
traveled (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
64903
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.
Table 7 shows the on-road Chatham,
Franklin, Johnston, Orange and Person
Counties emissions based on the current
RVP of 9.0 psi and the on-road Wake,
Durham, and Granville Counties
emissions based on the current RVP of
7.8 psi. Table 8 shows the on-road
emissions data for Durham, Granville
and Wake Counties for 2005, 2008 and
2011 based on 7.8 psi and the
comparison of the projected 2014 and
2017 emissions based on a RVP
relaxation to 9.0 psi for the three
counties.
TABLE 7—MOVES ON-ROAD EMISSIONS FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA *
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
MOVES ................................................................................
87.66
74.10
59.13
48.22
38.97
152.05
117.46
91.84
72.88
NOX Emissions (tons/day)
MOVES ................................................................................
175.18
* Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on the current RVP of 7.8 psi.
TABLE 8—MOVES ON-ROAD EMISSIONS COMPARISON *
2005
2008
2014 **
2011
2017 **
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
MOVES ................................................................................
57.69
49.01
39.21
31.90/32.94
25.64/26.44
102.92
80.09
62.56/62.99
49.48/49.78
NOX Emissions (tons/day)
MOVES ................................................................................
116.11
* Emissions data for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties only.
** Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on relaxation of RVP of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
c. Non-Road Inventory
nuclear generating units at DukeProgress Energy Company in Wake
County.
In the original 2007 redesignation
demonstration and maintenance plan,
the model used to generate off-road
emissions was the NONROAD2005c
model. Since 2007, EPA has updated the
non-road model to NONROAD2008a.
NONROAD2008a is the latest USEPA
approved non-road model. In this
revision, the NONROAD2008a model is
used to generate non-road emissions for
all inventory years—2005, 2008, 2011,
2014, and 2017. Also, the non-road
emissions documentation includes the
general conformity analysis for two new
d. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
In the March 27, 2013, SIP revision,
North Carolina provided an increase for
the amount of safety margins allocated
to the NOX MVEBs to account for
changes in the projection models. The
MVEBs in this SIP revision which EPA
is proposing to approve update the
MVEBs which were originally approved
by EPA on December 26, 2007. The
updated MVEBs are outlined in table 9
below.
11 A safety margin is the difference between the
attainment level of emissions from all source
categories (i.e., point, area, and mobile) and the
projected level of emissions from all source
categories. The State may choose to allocate some
of the safety margin to the MVEBs, for
transportation conformity purposes, so long as the
total level of emissions from all source categories
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NC DENR is currently allocating
portions of the available safety margin
to the MVEBs to allow for unanticipated
VMT growth as well as changes to
future vehicle mix assumptions that
influence the emission estimations. In
the March 2013 SIP revision, North
Carolina is seeking to adjust the safety
margins. The following tables provide
the adjusted NOX MVEBs, in kilograms
per day (kg/d) for the 2008 base
attainment year inventories, as well as
the projected NOX emissions inventory
2017 for each County.
remains equal to or less than the attainment level
of emissions. (40 CFR 93.124(a))
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
64904
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9—TRIANGLE AREA (COUNTY LEVEL) NOX MVEB IN KILOGRAMS PER DAY
2008 NOX
(kg/d)
County
Chatham* ................
Durham ...................
Franklin ...................
Granville ..................
Johnston .................
Orange ....................
Person .....................
Wake .......................
Total .................
2017 NOX
(kg/d)
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
Base Emissions ..........................................................................................................
Safety Margin .............................................................................................................
NOX Conformity MVEB ..............................................................................................
3,033
455
3,488
22,438
2,244
24,682
4,537
454
4,991
6,105
916
7,021
20,320
2,032
22,352
13,820
1,382
15,202
2,871
431
3,302
64,825
6,483
71,308
1,690
422
2,112
10,509
2,101
12,610
2,204
441
2,645
2,622
656
3,278
9,865
1,972
11,838
6,137
1,227
7,364
1,340
335
1,674
32,034
6,407
38,441
New Safety Margin .....................................................................................................
14,396
13,563
* Chatham County emissions for maintenance area only.
A total of 14,396 kg (15.87 tpd) and
13,563 kg (14.95 tpd) from the available
NOX safety margins in 2008 and 2017,
respectively, were added to the MVEBs
for the Triangle Area.
As demonstrated above, the Triangle
Area is projected to steadily decrease its
total NOX emissions from the base year
of 2005 to the maintenance year of 2017.
This NOX emission decrease
demonstrates continued attainment/
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for ten years from 2007 (the
year the Area was effectively designated
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS) as required by the CAA.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the State
of North Carolina’s March 27, 2013,
revision to its Maintenance Plan for the
Triangle 1997 8-hour Ozone
Maintenance Area. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the State’s
showing that the Triangle Area can
continue to maintain the 1997 ozone
standard without emissions reductions
associated with the use of 7.8 psi RVP
gasoline in the three portions of the
Triangle Area currently subject to the
7.8 psi RVP standard during the high
ozone season—June 1 through
September 15.
EPA proposes to approve the revised
and updated modeling submitted by the
State, which shows that the Triangle
Area can continue to maintain the 1997
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
ozone standard if the applicable RVP
standard in the three portions of the
Triangle Area, the North Carolina
revision is changed. EPA is also
proposing to approve the revised NOX
MVEBs for 2008 and 2017 including the
revised and reallocated safety margin
among the NOX MVEBs for the Triangle
Area.
EPA has preliminarily determined
that North Carolina’s March 27, 2013,
SIP revision, including the technical
demonstration associated with the
State’s request for the removal of the
Federal RVP requirements, and the
updated MVEBs are consistent with the
applicable provisions of the CAA.
Should EPA decide to remove the
subject portions of the Triangle Area
from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi
Federal RVP requirements, such action
will occur in a separate, subsequent
rulemaking.
VIII. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 21, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013–25782 Filed 10–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
46 CFR Part 153
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0915]
RIN 1625–ZA31
Carriage of Conditionally Permitted
Shale Gas Extraction Waste Water in
Bulk
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of availability and
request for comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard announces
the availability of a proposed policy
letter concerning the carriage of shale
gas extraction waste water in bulk via
barge, and invites public comment. The
policy letter specifies the conditions
under which a barge owner may request
and be granted a Certificate of
Inspection endorsement or letter
allowing the barge to transport shale gas
extraction waste water in bulk. The
policy letter also defines the
information the Coast Guard may
require the barge owner to provide and
specifies the additional requirements
the Coast Guard is considering imposing
on such barges. Upon reviewing
SUMMARY:
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email Dr. Cynthia A. Znati, Office of
Design and Engineering Standards,
Hazardous Materials Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1412,
email HazmatStandards@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Coast Guard
VerDate Mar<15>2010
comments received on this proposed
policy letter, Coast Guard will issue the
final policy letter and specify its
effective date.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before November 29, 2013 or reach
the Docket Management Facility by that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2013–0915 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
16:02 Oct 29, 2013
Jkt 232001
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to submit
comments and related material on the
proposed policy letter concerning the
carriage of conditionally permitted shale
gas extraction waste water in bulk. In
particular, we specifically request
public comment regarding the
disclosure of proprietary information to
the Coast Guard, and regarding the
applicability of testing requirements for
radioactive materials to all regions
where shale gas extraction waste water
may be transported by barge. All
comments received will be posted,
without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64905
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting comments: If you submit a
comment, please include the docket
number for this notice (USCG–2013–
0915) and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Notices’’ and insert ‘‘USCG–
2013–0915’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box.
Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the balloon
shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit them by mail and
would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Viewing the comments and proposed
new policy letter: To view the comments
and the policy letter, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, click on the ‘‘read
comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2013–
0915’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the Department
of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation to use
the Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of
the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business,
labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act, system of records notice
regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal
Register (73 FR 3316).
E:\FR\FM\30OCP1.SGM
30OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64896-64905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25782]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0563; FRL-9902-18-Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina:
Non-Interference Demonstration for Removal of Federal Low-Reid
Vapor Pressure Requirement for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's
March 27, 2013, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the State's
approved Maintenance Plan for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (Triangle)
1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Area. Specifically, North Carolina's
revision, including updated modeling, shows that the Triangle Area
would continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard if the
currently applicable Federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard for
gasoline from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) were modified to 9.0 psi
for three portions (Wake and Durham Counties, and a portion of
Granville County) of the ``Triangle Area'' of North Carolina 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 areas would not interfere with continued maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (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 Triangle Area from the
list of areas that are currently subject to the Federal 7.8 psi RVP
requirements. In addition, EPA is also proposing to approve changes to
the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) used in the 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. The use of new models and
the relaxation of the RVP requirement has resulted in a revised safety
margin which North Carolina is reallocating among the MVEBs associated
the Maintenance Plan. EPA has preliminarily determined that North
Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision with respect to the changes 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 MVEBs, is consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Should EPA decide to
remove the subject portions of the Triangle 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 November 29,
2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R04-OAR-2013-0563 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0563, 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-
2013-0563. 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 https://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.
[[Page 64897]]
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 (404) 562-9043, or via electronic
mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is being proposed?
II. What is the background of the Triangle 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. Mobile Source Inventories and Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
Update
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being proposed?
The Triangle 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 December 26, 2007.
See 72 FR 72948. This rulemaking proposes to approve a revision to the
1997 8-hour ozone Maintenance Plan for the Triangle Area submitted by
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC
DENR). Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve changes to the
maintenance plan, including updated modeling, that show that the
Triangle Area can continue to maintain the 1997 ozone standard without
reliance on emission reductions based upon the use of gasoline with an
RVP of 7.8 psi in any of the Triangle 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 Triangle 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 Maintenance Plan Areas 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 Triangle Area. While EPA evaluates the
approvability of North Carolina'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 Triangle
Area is made at the discretion of the Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new modeling conducted by North Carolina to account for the
proposed relaxation of the applicable RVP standard in a portion of the
Triangle Area also results in changes to the safety margin associated
with the maintenance plan.\2\ As such, the North Carolina revision
includes a reallocation of the safety margin among the NOx MVEBs for
the Triangle 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 Triangle 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 Triangle Area. Finally, Section VI describes the
changes to the MVEBs associated with Maintenance Plan for the Triangle
Area and provides EPA's analysis regarding the proposed revision.
II. What is the background of the Triangle Area?
In 1991, the Triangle Area was designated as a moderate
nonattainment area pursuant to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Triangle
nonattainment area was composed of Durham and Wake Counties, and the
Dutchville Township portion of Granville County. 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 its nonattainment designation, gasoline
sold in the Triangle 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
Triangle Area, on April 18, 1994, the Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, based on 1989-1992 ambient
air quality monitoring data. See 59 FR 18300. North Carolina's
redesignation request for the 1-hour ozone Triangle Area did not,
however, include a request for the Area to be removed from the list of
areas subject to the 7.8 psi RVP standard. As such, the 7.8 RVP
requirement remained in place for Durham and Wake Counties, and the
Dutchville Township portion of Granville County when the Triangle Area
was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Triangle Area was expanded from Durham and
Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County,
to also include Franklin, Johnston, Orange, and Person Counties, the
remainder of Granville County and Baldwin, Center, New Hope and
Williams Townships in Chatham County. See 69 FR 23857. In 2007, the
Triangle Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 72 FR 72948, December 26, 2007. The Triangle Area was later
designated as attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR
30088, May 21, 2012.
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 high ozone 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
[[Page 64898]]
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
we 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
limits of CAA section 211(h).\3\ 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: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
in a nonattainment area 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 Triangle 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 Triangle 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 March 27, 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 March 27, 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
Triangle 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 Triangle 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 Triangle area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ While EPA evaluates the approvability of North Carolina'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 Triangle Area is made at the discretion of the
Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's submittal?
a. Overall Preliminary Non-Interference Analyses Conclusions for North
Carolina's Request for the Revision of the Maintenance Plan
As discussed above, on March 27, 2013, NC DENR submitted a revision
to the existing maintenance plan for the Triangle 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance area. Specifically, NC DENR revised the modeling for on-
road mobile, off-road mobile, and area source emissions. The modeling
was revised to show the emission changes that would result from
relaxing the gasoline RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the
Triangle Area during the high ozone season. North Carolina's March 27,
2013, SIP revision also included 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 proposed change to the applicable RVP requirement, EPA
is making the preliminary determination that the relevant NAAQS \5\ for
consideration in the non-interference demonstration required by section
110(l) of the CAA
[[Page 64899]]
are the ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare
based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and
SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC and NOX emissions are precursors for ozone and
particulate matter (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
carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. Typically, EPA would not expect the CO
NAAQS to be affected by a change 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 change would
have any impact on those NAAQS. Additionally, the Triangle Area is
currently designated attainment for the lead NAAQS, and is continuing
to attain the standard. As for the SO2 NAAQS, the Triangle
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 changes to the
RVP requirements on the ozone, particulate matter, NO2 and
CO NAAQS.
To determine the emissions reviewed in the technical demonstration
included with the March 27, 2013, SIP revision, NC DENR compared the
2005 baseline emissions inventory to the 2017 projected emissions
inventory. The baseline emissions inventory represents an emission
level for a period when the applicable ambient air quality standard was
not violated, 2004-2006. NC DENR concluded that if projected emissions
remain at or below the baseline emissions, continued maintenance is
demonstrated and the ambient air quality standard should not be
violated in the future. In addition to comparing the final year of the
maintenance plan, NC DENR's technical demonstration also compares all
of the interim years to the 2005 baseline to demonstrate that these
years are also expected to show continued maintenance of all NAAQS.
Also, in North Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision, NC DENR
provided an updated analysis utilizing the MOVES model to calculate on-
road emissions that are used as part of the evaluation of the potential
impacts for the ozone NAAQS that might result exclusively from changing
the high ozone season RVP requirements from 7.8 psi to the requirement
of 9.0 psi. Relaxation of the RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi
revealed a slight increase in emissions of 0.30 tons per day (tpd) (a
0.20 percent increase) in NOX and 3.88 tpd (a 2.44 percent
increase) in VOC for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties. While the
modeling showed a slight increase in NOX and VOC emissions
resulting from the use of 9.0 psi RVP as opposed to 7.8 psi, the most
appropriate analysis for purposes of evaluating non-interference is
whether total area emissions from all emissions inventory sources
(i.e., point and area stationary, and on-road and non-road mobile) in
the future years would remain at or below the level determined to be
consistent with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. To provide this
full evaluation, the State compared total man-made emissions of VOC and
NOX for the year 2005 (base year), 2008 and 2011 using a RVP
of 7.8 psi (for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties only as the
remaining Triangle Area Counties are currently using a RVP of 9.0 psi)
to emissions generated for the years 2014 and 2017, 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) off-road
mobile. Point sources are those stationary sources that emit more than
10 tons per year of VOC or 100 tons per year of NOX 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. 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. On-road mobile sources are those vehicles that travel
on the roadways. For on-road mobile sources, the MOVES model results
represent the new motor vehicle emission budgets for the Triangle area.
Off-road mobile sources are equipment that can move but do not use the
roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad
locomotives, and 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 from the change to the RVP
control, the Triangle Area continues to demonstrate a downward trend in
NOX and VOC emissions through 2017. Tables 1 and 2 below
provide the results of this analysis for the entire Triangle Area
(including the three Counties (noted in italics) affected by the
proposed RVP relaxation).
Table 1--Total Man-Made VOC Emissions (tpd) for the Triangle Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham *....................... 5.52 5.57 5.23 5.00 4.85
Durham.......................... 25.94 23.27 20.93 19.47 18.31
Franklin........................ 11.81 11.55 11.20 11.14 11.23
Granville....................... 12.78 12.38 11.98 11.85 11.90
Johnston........................ 30.58 29.43 28.31 27.73 27.57
Orange.......................... 15.42 14.35 13.10 12.13 11.35
Person.......................... 9.00 8.65 8.32 8.12 8.07
[[Page 64900]]
Wake............................ 87.45 81.34 75.61 72.33 69.85
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 198.50 186.54 174.68 167.77 163.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions for Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County only.
Table 2--Total Man-Made NOX Emissions (tpd) for the Triangle Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham *....................... 5.01 4.44 3.79 3.17 2.73
Durham.......................... 39.48 35.16 28.45 23.52 19.73
Franklin........................ 7.68 6.55 5.37 4.49 3.82
Granville....................... 10.94 8.98 7.01 5.56 4.57
Johnston........................ 34.22 28.94 23.19 19.32 16.47
Orange.......................... 23.37 20.64 16.53 13.52 11.31
Person.......................... 37.48 31.38 31.20 31.02 29.72
Wake............................ 106.52 98.12 83.82 69.97 59.06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 264.70 234.21 199.36 170.57 147.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions for Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County only.
As Table 1 and 2 indicate, NOX and VOC emissions in the
Triangle Area will continue to decrease, even with the increase in high
ozone season fuel RVP to 9.0 psi. The slight increase in emissions is
being mitigated area-wide by a steady decrease in tailpipe emissions,
which is the result of cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing the older
fleet and other Federal and State emissions reduction programs. As
discussed below, based on this data, together with air quality data,
and maintenance demonstrations and attainment designations for the
NAAQS, EPA is making the preliminary determination that the slight
increase in NOX and VOC emissions resulting from this change
will not interfere with the Area's ability to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, or any other applicable requirement. More details on the
individual non-interference analyses for the ozone, PM, NO2
and CO NAAQS are provided below.
b. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS
Effective June 15, 2004, the Triangle Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The primary precursors
for ozone are VOC and NOX emissions. As a previous 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area, Durham and Wake Counties and a portion of
Granville County in the Triangle Area were already subject to the
Federal RVP requirements for high ozone season gasoline to aid the Area
with compliance with the ozone NAAQS. Although originally implemented
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Federal RVP requirements continued to
apply to Durham and Wake Counties and a portion of Granville County for
the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and are still in effect.
On June 7, 2007, NC DENR submitted a redesignation request and
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. NC DENR used the
MOBILE6.2 mobile source emissions model to estimate the emissions for
on-road sources and NONROAD2005c non-road mobile model for off-road
sources. In the years 2014 and 2017, NC DENR projected a reduction from
the 2005 base year inventory of approximately 38 percent and 45 percent
(respectively) in NOX emissions (in tpd). The projected
reduction of VOC emissions (in tpd) for the years 2014 and 2017 is
approximately 36 percent and 44 percent, respectively, from the 2005
base year emissions inventory.
There is an overall downward trend in ozone concentration in the
Triangle Area that can be attributed to Federal and State programs that
have led to significant emissions reductions. On December 26, 2007, (72
FR 72948), EPA approved North Carolina's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Triangle Area, and redesignated the Area to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Triangle Area is continuing to meet
the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,\6\ and is meeting the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, based on recent air quality monitoring data. The 2008
ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 75 parts per million
(ppm) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, on December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72948), EPA
approved North Carolina's June 7, 2007, maintenance plan for the
Triangle Area. This maintenance plan contained MVEBs for NOX
and an insignificance determination for VOC contribution from motor
vehicles to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Triangle Area. For the
purposes of regional emissions analysis, the information provided by
North Carolina supported EPA's determination that VOC contribution to
8-hour ozone pollution from motor vehicles in the Triangle Area as
insignificant for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the future
on-road VOC emissions were projected to be less than 10 percent in the
Triangle Area, in the context of the total SIP inventory. According to
information provided by North Carolina, biogenic emissions account for
approximately 90 percent of the VOC emissions in future years in the
Triangle Area.
In addition, North Carolina conducted a emissions sensitivity
analysis that indicated that 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone levels in the
Triangle Area were not impacted by reductions in man-made VOC emissions
(e.g., reductions from motor vehicles). Specifically, the photochemical
model was run for a 39-day scenario in 2009 with a 30 percent reduction
in all man-made VOC emissions. In addition, two mobile
[[Page 64901]]
source specific sensitivity simulations \7\ were conducted by NCDAQ
over a 7-day period to specifically focus on the impact of mobile
source emissions on ozone formation. None of these emissions
sensitivity simulations resulted in a significant response in ozone
formation. This supports the State's proposal that the highway mobile
VOC emissions are insignificant contributors to ozone formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ One simulation ran a 50 percent increase in mobile source
emissions in the Triangle ozone nonattainment counties and the
second ran a 50 percent decrease in mobile source emissions in the
counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current design value for ozone for the Triangle Area for 2010-
2012 is 0.075 ppm and the preliminary 2011-2013 design value is 0.071
ppm for this Area. EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC
and NOX precursor emissions, and whether it is reasonable to
conclude that the requested change to RVP requirements in Durham,
Granville and Wake Counties during the high ozone season would cause
the Area to be out of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
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,\8\ EPA has preliminarily determined that North
Carolina's revision of the maintenance plan to no longer rely on
gasoline with 7.8 psi RVP requirement in Durham, Granville and Wake
Counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS. As Table 3 indicates the design value (DV) for the Triangle Area
shows that the Area is meeting the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Future decreases in the inventory are an order of magnitude
greater than the increases associated with the change in RVP.
Table 3--Triangle Area Design Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005-2007 DV 2006-2008 DV 2007-2009 DV 2008-2010 DV 2009-2011 DV 2010-2012 DV
2004-2006 DV (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.080................................. 0.081 0.080 0.077 0.074 0.073 0.075
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM NAAQS
The precursors for PM2.5 are NOX,
SO2, VOC and ammonia. For the Triangle Area, on-road mobile,
off-road mobile and area sources are not believed to be large
contributors to directly emitted fine particulate matter less than 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5) or indirectly formed PM2.5
concentrations. As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, the RVP
requirements result in emissions benefits for VOC and NOX so
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 March 27, 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 18 December 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, off-road and area sources combined, while
the remaining 96.7 percent came from point sources.
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), 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), all counties in the Triangle Area
were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard, and on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), all
counties in the Triangle Area were designated unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As Table 4 indicates
the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour design values demonstrate
attainment of the respective NAAQS and those for the annual standard
have been decreasing.
Table 4--PM2.5 Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value.................................................... 10.4 9.8 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hour Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Value.................................................... 22 22 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the fact that a change to the NC Maintenance Plan to no
longer rely on gasoline with a 7.8 psi RVP requirement will only result
in a slight increase in VOC and NOX emissions, EPA has
preliminarily determined that a change to the Federal RVP requirement
for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties would not interfere with
[[Page 64902]]
the Triangle Area maintaining the 1997 PM2.5 annual or the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
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 Triangle Area, were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. Based on North Carolina's March 27, 2013,
SIP revision, EPA has evaluated the potential increase in the
NOX emissions (approximately a quarter of a ton per day
between June 1st and September 15th) and whether it is reasonable to
believe that North Carolina's requested change for its high ozone
season RVP requirement would cause the Area to be out of compliance
with the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The slight increase in
NOX emissions is being mitigated by a steady decrease in
tailpipe emissions,\9\ which is the result of cleaner new vehicle fleet
replacing the older fleet. See table 2 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See table 2 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to the Federal
RVP requirements for the Triangle Area would not interfere with the
continued decline in NOX emissions, nor with attainment or
maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.
e. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO NAAQS
Durham and Wake Counties in the Triangle Area were previously
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991. Subsequently, Durham and Wake Counties attained the
8-hour CO NAAQS and was redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
On August 2, 1995, EPA redesignated Durham and Wake Counties to
attainment for the 8-hour CO NAAQS based on the measured air quality
data and the 10-year maintenance plan submitted. See 60 FR 39258. The
8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm and the 1-hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm. Monitoring
data from 2009-2012 shows Wake County is well below the 8-hour CO NAAQS
values as listed in Table 5.
Table 5--CO 8-Hour Monitored Concentration NAAQS
[ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Monitor ID 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8-hr NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wake............................ 371830014 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hr NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wake............................ 371830014 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the revised modeling associated with the proposed
relaxation of the RVP standard in the three portions of the Triangle
Area currently subject to the more stringent standard, it is estimated
that Triangle Area on-road CO emissions will increase approximately 6.3
tons per day in 2014 and 2017. This projected increase represents an
increase in the total inventory of less than 1 percent.
Table 6--2010 CO Emissions (Tons/Day) for Maintenance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Point source Area source On-road Non-road Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh-Durham Maintenance Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durham.......................... 0.97 1.54 186.00 19.04 207.55
Wake............................ 1.17 4.26 642.97 70.62 719.02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 2.14 5.80 828.97 89.66 926.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the slight increase in CO emissions, and the existing
air quality data showing a wide margin of compliance with the CO NAAQS,
EPA has preliminarily determined that a change to the Federal RVP
requirement for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties would not interfere
with the Raleigh-Durham Area maintaining the CO standards. As Table 5
above indicates the CO design value is well below the standard.
VI. Mobile Source Inventories and Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Update
a. Background
On June 7, 2007, the State of North Carolina, through NC DENR,
submitted a final request for EPA to: (1) Redesignate the Triangle Area
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard; and (2) approve a
North Carolina SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the
Triangle Area. On December 26, 2007 (72 FR 72948), EPA approved the
redesignation request for the Triangle Area. Additionally, EPA approved
the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan including NOX MVEBs
for the Triangle Area.\10\ These approvals were based on EPA's
determination that the State of North Carolina had demonstrated that
the Triangle Area met the criteria for redesignation to attainment
specified in the CAA, including the determination
[[Page 64903]]
that the entire Triangle Area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the December 26, 2007 final rule EPA also approved NC
DENR's determination that on-road emissions of VOCs are
insignificant for transportation conformity purposes. We are not
addressing that insignificance finding in today's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of original redesignation request, the on-road motor
vehicle inventory was generating by the MOBILE6.2 model, which at the
time was the current MVEB model. The proposed change to the maintenance
plan discussed above includes a MVEB generated by the MOVES model which
has since replaced MOBILE6.2 model. In addition, the model used to
calculate the original non-road inventory (NONROAD2005c) has also since
been updated by a new non-road inventory model (NONROAD2008a).
As a result of these new models and the revised emission associated
with a relaxed RVP standard, the safety margin \11\ calculations
provided in the revised maintenance plan have changes from the previous
margins included with the original maintenance plan. Therefore, North
Carolina's revision includes a reallocation of the safety margin to the
NOX MVEB based upon the revised calculations. EPA's
preliminary analysis of these changes is described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A safety margin is the difference between the attainment
level of emissions from all source categories (i.e., point, area,
and mobile) and the projected level of emissions from all source
categories. The State may choose to allocate some of the safety
margin to the MVEBs, for transportation conformity purposes, so long
as the total level of emissions from all source categories remains
equal to or less than the attainment level of emissions. (40 CFR
93.124(a))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. On-Road Inventory
As discussed above, the on-road motor vehicle emissions in the
revised maintenance plan are calculated using the MOVES model. The
MOVES model uses the road class vehicle miles traveled (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.
Table 7 shows the on-road Chatham, Franklin, Johnston, Orange and
Person Counties emissions based on the current RVP of 9.0 psi and the
on-road Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on the
current RVP of 7.8 psi. Table 8 shows the on-road emissions data for
Durham, Granville and Wake Counties for 2005, 2008 and 2011 based on
7.8 psi and the comparison of the projected 2014 and 2017 emissions
based on a RVP relaxation to 9.0 psi for the three counties.
Table 7--MOVES On-Road Emissions for the Triangle Area *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVES........................... 87.66 74.10 59.13 48.22 38.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVES........................... 175.18 152.05 117.46 91.84 72.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on the current RVP of 7.8 psi.
Table 8--MOVES On-Road Emissions Comparison *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2008 2011 2014 \**\ 2017 \**\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVES........................... 57.69 49.01 39.21 31.90/32.94 25.64/26.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVES........................... 116.11 102.92 80.09 62.56/62.99 49.48/49.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emissions data for Durham, Granville and Wake Counties only.
** Wake, Durham, and Granville Counties emissions based on relaxation of RVP of 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
c. Non-Road Inventory
In the original 2007 redesignation demonstration and maintenance
plan, the model used to generate off-road emissions was the
NONROAD2005c model. Since 2007, EPA has updated the non-road model to
NONROAD2008a. NONROAD2008a is the latest USEPA approved non-road model.
In this revision, the NONROAD2008a model is used to generate non-road
emissions for all inventory years--2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017.
Also, the non-road emissions documentation includes the general
conformity analysis for two new nuclear generating units at Duke-
Progress Energy Company in Wake County.
d. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
In the March 27, 2013, SIP revision, North Carolina provided an
increase for the amount of safety margins allocated to the
NOX MVEBs to account for changes in the projection models.
The MVEBs in this SIP revision which EPA is proposing to approve update
the MVEBs which were originally approved by EPA on December 26, 2007.
The updated MVEBs are outlined in table 9 below.
NC DENR is currently allocating portions of the available safety
margin to the MVEBs to allow for unanticipated VMT growth as well as
changes to future vehicle mix assumptions that influence the emission
estimations. In the March 2013 SIP revision, North Carolina is seeking
to adjust the safety margins. The following tables provide the adjusted
NOX MVEBs, in kilograms per day (kg/d) for the 2008 base
attainment year inventories, as well as the projected NOX
emissions inventory 2017 for each County.
[[Page 64904]]
Table 9--Triangle Area (County Level) NOX MVEB in Kilograms per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 NOX (kg/d) 2017 NOX (kg/d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham\*\............................... Base Emissions................... 3,033 1,690
Safety Margin.................... 455 422
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 3,488 2,112
Durham................................... Base Emissions................... 22,438 10,509
Safety Margin.................... 2,244 2,101
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 24,682 12,610
Franklin................................. Base Emissions................... 4,537 2,204
Safety Margin.................... 454 441
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 4,991 2,645
Granville................................ Base Emissions................... 6,105 2,622
Safety Margin.................... 916 656
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 7,021 3,278
Johnston................................. Base Emissions................... 20,320 9,865
Safety Margin.................... 2,032 1,972
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 22,352 11,838
Orange................................... Base Emissions................... 13,820 6,137
Safety Margin.................... 1,382 1,227
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 15,202 7,364
Person................................... Base Emissions................... 2,871 1,340
Safety Margin.................... 431 335
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 3,302 1,674
Wake..................................... Base Emissions................... 64,825 32,034
Safety Margin.................... 6,483 6,407
NOX Conformity MVEB.............. 71,308 38,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ New Safety Margin................ 14,396 13,563
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Chatham County emissions for maintenance area only.
A total of 14,396 kg (15.87 tpd) and 13,563 kg (14.95 tpd) from the
available NOX safety margins in 2008 and 2017, respectively,
were added to the MVEBs for the Triangle Area.
As demonstrated above, the Triangle Area is projected to steadily
decrease its total NOX emissions from the base year of 2005
to the maintenance year of 2017. This NOX emission decrease
demonstrates continued attainment/maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for ten years from 2007 (the year the Area was effectively
designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) as required by
the CAA.
VII. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the State of North Carolina's March 27,
2013, revision to its Maintenance Plan for the Triangle 1997 8-hour
Ozone Maintenance Area. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
State's showing that the Triangle Area can continue to maintain the
1997 ozone standard without emissions reductions associated with the
use of 7.8 psi RVP gasoline in the three portions of the Triangle Area
currently subject to the 7.8 psi RVP standard during the high ozone
season--June 1 through September 15.
EPA proposes to approve the revised and updated modeling submitted
by the State, which shows that the Triangle Area can continue to
maintain the 1997 ozone standard if the applicable RVP standard in the
three portions of the Triangle Area, the North Carolina revision is
changed. EPA is also proposing to approve the revised NOX
MVEBs for 2008 and 2017 including the revised and reallocated safety
margin among the NOX MVEBs for the Triangle Area.
EPA has preliminarily determined that North Carolina's March 27,
2013, SIP revision, including the technical demonstration associated
with the State's request for the removal of the Federal RVP
requirements, and the updated MVEBs are consistent with the applicable
provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove the subject portions
of the Triangle Area from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi Federal
RVP requirements, such action will occur in a separate, subsequent
rulemaking.
VIII. 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
[[Page 64905]]
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 21, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-25782 Filed 10-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P