Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 14817-14821 [06-2870]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–RO4–OAR–2005–NC–0002–200538(a);
FRL–8049–2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; North Carolina:
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-Year
Maintenance Plan for the Carbon
Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a
revision to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in
final form on March 23, 2005. The SIP
revision provides the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Areas,
which are composed of the following
four counties: Mecklenburg (Charlotte
Area); Durham and Wake (RaleighDurham Area); and Forsyth (WinstonSalem Area). The second 10-year
maintenance plan includes new motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
carbon monoxide for the year 2015. EPA
is approving this SIP revision, including
the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon
monoxide, because it satisfies the
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the second 10-year maintenance plan
for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas.
In addition, in this rulemaking, EPA
is providing information on its
transportation conformity adequacy
determination for new MVEBs for the
year 2015 that are contained in the
second 10-year carbon monoxide
maintenance plan for the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas. EPA determined that the 2015
MVEBs are adequate through a previous
action.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
May 23, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by April 24, 2006. If adverse comment
is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04–
0AR–2005–NC–0002, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:05 Mar 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–0AR–2005–NC–
0002’’, 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:
Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at
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. 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 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. : ‘‘EPA–R04–0AR–2005–
NC–0002’’. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://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
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at
https://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14817
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://
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 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at
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. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9025.
Ms. Amanetta Wood can also be reached
via electronic mail at
wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas’ Second 10-Year Maintenance
Plan?
III. What Is EPA’s Action on the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas’ Second 10-Year Maintenance
Plan?
IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and
What Is EPA’s Adequacy Determination
for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas’ New MVEBs for
the Year 2015?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is the Background for This
Action?
In 1994, based on measured air
quality data, the Charlotte, RaleighDurham, and Winston-Salem Areas
were able to demonstrate attainment
with the carbon monoxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
due to numerous control measures
implemented in each of the respective
Areas. As a result of the measured air
quality data, North Carolina petitioned
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
14818
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
EPA for redesignation of these three
Areas to attainment for carbon
monoxide. In 1994, EPA redesignated
the Winston-Salem Area to attainment
based on the measured air quality data
and a 10-year maintenance plan
submitted for the Winston-Salem Area
(59 FR 48399). In 1995, EPA
redesignated both the Charlotte Area
and the Raleigh-Durham Area to
attainment based on the measured air
quality data and the 10-year
maintenance plan submitted for these
areas (60 FR 39258).
The air quality maintenance plan is a
requirement of the 1990 CAA
amendments for nonattainment areas
that come into compliance with the
NAAQS to assure their continued
maintenance of that standard. Eight
years after redesignation to attainment,
section 175A(b) of the CAA requires the
state to submit a revised maintenance
plan which demonstrates that
attainment will continue to be
maintained for the 10 years following
the initial 10-year period (this is known
as the second 10-year maintenance
plan). The second 10-year maintenance
plan updates the original 10-year carbon
monoxide maintenance plan for the next
10-year period. Thus, pursuant to the
CAA section 175A(b), North Carolina
was required to submit the second 10year maintenance plan for the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas demonstrating that it would
continue to attain the carbon monoxide
NAAQS in those Areas through 2015.
II. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas’ Second 10-Year
Maintenance Plan?
On March 23, 2005, the State of North
Carolina, through the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), submitted a SIP
revision to EPA that provided for the
second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas as required by
section 175A(b) of the CAA. This
second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas includes a new
carbon monoxide emission inventory for
2000 which reflects emission controls
applicable for the Charlotte, RaleighDurham, and Winston-Salem Areas, and
actual and projected emissions for 2000,
2005, 2010, and 2015. The SIP revision
also establishes new MVEBs for carbon
monoxide for 2015 for the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas.
The emission reduction measures for
carbon monoxide emissions
implemented in the Charlotte, RaleighDurham, and Winston-Salem Areas from
1995 to 2005, and control measures that
are projected to occur between 2005 and
2015, are accounted for in the 2000
emission inventory and projected
emissions estimates. The following
three tables provide emissions data and
projections for carbon monoxide. The
on-road mobile portion of the data was
calculated with Mobile 6.2.
TABLE 1.—CHARLOTTE CARBON MONOXIDE AREA—MECKLENBURG COUNTY EMISSION INVENTORY AND PROJECTED CO
EMISSIONS (2000–2015)
[Calculated in tons per day]
Non-road
mobile
Area
2000
2005
2010
2015
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
24.97
29.42
32.42
34.96
142.23
160.64
171.27
181.77
On-road
mobile
522.39
431.03
357.99
328.79
Point
5.58
6.43
7.45
8.27
Total
695.17
627.52
569.13
553.79
TABLE 2.—RALEIGH-DURHAM CARBON MONOXIDE AREA—DURHAM AND WAKE COUNTY EMISSION INVENTORY AND
PROJECTED CO EMISSIONS (2000–2015)
[Calculated in tons per day]
Non-road
mobile
Area
Durham County:
2000 ..................................................................................................
2005 ..................................................................................................
2010 ..................................................................................................
2015 ..................................................................................................
Wake County:
2000 ..................................................................................................
2005 ..................................................................................................
2010 ..................................................................................................
2015 ..................................................................................................
On-road
mobile
Point
Total
13.45
15.44
16.73
17.99
31.98
34.12
31.52
28.82
178.79
152.32
118.71
105.30
0.86
0.91
0.98
1.05
225.08
202.79
167.94
153.16
35.21
41.45
45.36
49.21
87.26
97.02
102.61
108.12
419.46
362.51
300.12
282.39
1.36
1.44
1.57
1.69
543.29
502.42
449.66
441.41
TABLE 3.—WINSTON-SALEM CARBON MONOXIDE AREA—FORSYTH COUNTY EMISSION INVENTORY AND PROJECTED CO
EMISSIONS (2000–2015)
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
[Calculated in tons per day]
Non-road
mobile
Area
2000
2005
2010
2015
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Mar 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
25.13
29.58
32.10
34.51
Sfmt 4700
40.35
44.07
43.50
43.00
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
On-road
mobile
259.88
211.02
168.17
145.05
24MRR1
Point
2.56
2.49
2.61
2.76
Total
327.92
287.16
246.38
225.32
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
The attainment level of emissions is
the level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
The Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas continued to
attain the carbon monoxide NAAQS
based on air quality data for the year
2000. Therefore, in this SIP revision, the
emissions from the year 2000 are used
to calculate a new attainment emissions
level for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham,
and Winston-Salem Areas. The
emissions from point, area, nonroad,
and mobile sources in 2000 equal
695.17 tons per day (tpd) of carbon
monoxide for Mecklenburg County,
225.08 tpd for Durham County, 543.29
tpd for Wake County, and 327.92 tpd for
Forsyth County. The projected carbon
monoxide emissions for the year 2015
equal 553.79 tpd for Mecklenburg
County, 153.16 tpd for Durham County,
441.41 tpd for Wake County, and 225.32
tpd for Forsyth County. These emission
calculations were made using the
MOBILE6.2 model and the most recent
version of the nonroad model. The
projected emissions are lower than the
attainment level of emissions, thus
demonstrating continued maintenance
of the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
The safety margin is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
safety margin is for the entire Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas and is sub-allocated by county.
The safety margin credit, or a portion
thereof, can be allocated to the
transportation sector, however, the total
emission level must stay below the
attainment level. The safety margin for
carbon monoxide is the difference
between these amounts or, in this case,
141.39 tpd for Mecklenburg County for
2015, 71.92 tpd for Durham County for
2015, 101.88 tpd for Wake County for
2015, and 102.59 tpd for Forsyth County
for 2015. The emissions are projected to
maintain the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham,
and Winston-Salem Areas’ air quality
14819
consistent with the carbon monoxide
NAAQS.
Maintenance plans and other control
strategy SIPs create MVEBs for criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from cars and trucks.
The MVEB is the portion of the total
allowable emissions that is allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling
on emissions from an area’s planned
transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further
explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, Transportation
Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish and revise MVEBs in a SIP. In
this SIP revision, the Charlotte, RaleighDurham, and Winston-Salem Areas used
MOBILE6.2 to establish MVEBs for
carbon monoxide for the year 2015. The
State of North Carolina has chosen to
allocate the entire safety margin to the
transportation section. These MVEBs are
listed in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
TABLE 4.1.—MECKLENBURG COUNTY 2015 MVEB WITH SAFETY MARGIN INCLUDED
2015 projected
on-road
emissions
(tons per day)
CO ................................................................................................................................................
Safety margin
2015 MVEB
with safety
margin
328.79
141.39
470.18
TABLE 4.2.—DURHAM COUNTY 2015 MVEB WITH SAFETY MARGIN INCLUDED
2015 projected
on-road
emissions
(tons per day)
2015 MVEB
with safety
margin
105.30
71.92
177.22
2015 projected
on-road
emissions
(tons per day)
CO ................................................................................................................................................
Safety margin
Safety margin
2015 MVEB
with safety
margin
282.39
101.88
384.27
TABLE 4.3.—WAKE COUNTY 2015 MVEB WITH SAFETY MARGIN INCLUDED
CO ................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 4.4.—FORSYTH COUNTY 2015 MVEB WITH SAFETY MARGIN INCLUDED
2015 on-road
emissions
(tons per day)
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
CO ................................................................................................................................................
The MVEBs presented in Table 4.5 are
directly reflective of the combined
onroad (or ‘‘highway’’) emissions for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas for carbon
monoxide, plus allocation from the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Mar 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
available safety margin. After allocation
of the safety margin to the MVEBs there
is no available safety margin for future
allocation. In summary, the new carbon
monoxide MVEBs for the year 2015 are
470.18 tpd for Mecklenburg County;
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Safety margin
MVEB with
safety margin
145.05
102.59
247.64
177.22 tpd for Durham County; 384.27
tpd for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for
Forsyth County. The MVEBs for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas that the
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
14820
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule
at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
Through this rulemaking, EPA is
providing information on the status of
TABLE 4.5.—2015 MVEBS FOR CO
its transportation conformity adequacy
[Tons per day]
determination for new MVEBs for the
Mecklenburg County ......................... 470.18 year 2015 that are contained in the
Durham County ................................ 177.22 second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Wake County .................................... 384.27 Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Forsyth County ................................. 247.64 Winston-Salem Areas. The adequacy
comment period for the 2015 MVEBs
began on March 29, 2005, with EPA’s
III. What Is EPA’s Action on the
posting of availability of this submittal
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
on EPA’s Adequacy Web site (at https://
Winston-Salem Areas’ Second 10-Year
www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm). The
Maintenance Plan?
adequacy comment period for these
EPA is approving North Carolina’s SIP MVEBs closed on April 28, 2005. No
revision pertaining to the Charlotte,
comments on this submittal were
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
received during EPA’s adequacy
Areas’ second 10-year maintenance
comment period.
plan, including the new 2015 MVEBs
In a letter dated April 29, 2005, to B.
Keith Overcash, Director of the Division
for carbon monoxide.
of Air Quality NCDENR, EPA informed
IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination
the State of its intention to find the new
and What Are EPA’s Adequacy
2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide
Determinations for the Charlotte,
adequate for transportation conformity
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
purposes. Subsequently, in a Final
Areas’ New MVEBs for the Year 2015?
Federal Register notice dated May 6,
Under Section 176(c) of the CAA, new 2005, (70 FR 24037) EPA found the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
transportation projects, such as the
Winston-Salem Areas’ 2015 carbon
construction of new highways, must
monoxide MVEBs adequate. These
‘‘conform’’ to (i.e. be consistent with)
MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria
the part of the State’s air quality plan
contained in the Transportation
that addresses pollution from cars and
Conformity Rule. The 2015 MVEBs for
trucks. ‘‘Conformity’’ to the SIP means
the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen Winston-Salem Areas are currently
being used for transportation conformity
existing violations, or delay timely
determinations. For regional emission
attainment of the NAAQS. Under the
analysis years that involve the year 2015
transportation conformity rule, at 40
or beyond, the applicable budget for the
CFR part 93, projected emissions from
transportation plans and programs must purposes of conducting transportation
conformity analysis will be the
be equal to or less than MVEBs for the
following 2015 MVEBs for carbon
area. If a transportation plan does not
monoxide: 470.18 tpd for Mecklenburg
‘‘conform,’’ most new projects that
County; 177.22 tpd for Durham County;
would expand the capacity of roadways
384.27 tpd for Wake County; and 247.64
cannot go forward. Regulations at 40
tpd for Forsyth County.
CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy,
criteria and procedures for
V. Statutory and Executive Order
demonstrating and assuring conformity
Reviews
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
Until MVEBs in a SIP submittal are
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
approved by EPA, they cannot be used
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
for transportation conformity purposes
therefore is not subject to review by the
unless EPA makes an affirmative finding Office of Management and Budget. For
that the MVEBs contained therein are
this reason, this action is also not
‘‘adequate.’’ Once EPA affirmatively
subject to Executive Order 13211,
finds the submitted MVEBs adequate for ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
transportation conformity purposes,
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
those MVEBs can be used by the State
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
and Federal agencies in determining
22, 2001). This action merely approves
whether proposed transportation
state law as meeting Federal
projects ‘‘conform’’ to the SIP even
requirements and imposes no additional
though the approval of the SIP revision
requirements beyond those imposed by
containing those MVEBs has not yet
state law. Accordingly, the
been finalized. EPA’s substantive
Administrator certifies that this rule
criteria for determining ‘‘adequacy’’ of
will not have a significant economic
MVEBs in submitted SIPs are set out in
impact on a substantial number of small
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
transportation partners must use are
provided in the table below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Mar 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
affects the status of a geographical area,
does not impose any new requirements
on sources or allow a state to avoid
adopting or implementing other
requirements, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
CAA. This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 23, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.
Dated: March 14, 2006.
A. Stanley Maiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
14821
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart II—North Carolina
2. Section 52.1770 (e) is amended by
adding a new entry at the end of the
table for ‘‘Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham,
and Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide
Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan’’ to
read as follows:
I
§ 52.1770
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
40 CFR part 52, is amended as
follows:
I
EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Provision
State effective date
EPA approval date
*
*
*
*
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide Second
10-Year Maintenance Plan.
*
March 18, 2005 .......
*
March 24, 2006 .......
This final rule is effective March
24, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay
Douglas in the Fluid Minerals Group at
(202) 452–0336. For assistance in
reaching Mr. Douglas, persons who use
a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
[FR Doc. 06–2870 Filed 3–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 3100
[WO–310–1310–PP–241A]
RIN 1004–AD83
Oil and Gas Lease Acreage Limitation
Exemptions and Reinstatement of Oil
and Gas Leases
Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is issuing this final
rule to amend its regulations to conform
to provisions of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct) that changed oil and gas
lease acreage limitations and oil and gas
lease reinstatement provisions. Section
352 of the EPAct expands the types of
lease holdings that are exempt from the
lease acreage holding limitations.
Section 371 of the EPAct extends the
time to file a lease reinstatement
petition from 15 months to 24 months.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Mar 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
I. Background
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
III. Procedural Matters
I. Background
Section 184(d) of the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 limited the amount of
acreage a Federal oil and gas lessee may
hold in any one state to 246,080 acres.
That section also provides that certain
types of acreage holdings are exempt
from those limitations. Section 352 of
the EPAct amended the Mineral Leasing
Act to expand the types of acreage
holdings that are exempt from the
limitations imposed by the Act.
Section 188(d) of the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 provides for reinstatement,
under certain circumstances, of Federal
oil and gas leases that were terminated
for nonpayment of rental. Section 371 of
the EPAct amended that section of the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal Register
citation
*
[Insert first page of
publication]
Act by extending the maximum time for
a lessee to submit a petition for
reinstatement to the BLM.
The BLM finds good cause to omit the
general notice of proposed rulemaking
required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The notice
and comment are unnecessary because
the terms of the EPAct are very clear
and provide no room for interpretation.
Both changes are required by the EPAct,
are not discretionary on the part of the
Secretary of the Interior, and would
implement clear and mandatory
provisions of a recently enacted statute.
For all the reasons noted above, the
BLM further finds good cause to waive
the delay in effectiveness in 5 U.S.C.
553(d). In addition, the provisions of the
revised regulations do not require any
change in conduct by the public and
have been known to the public since the
EPAct’s enactment in August 2005.
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
This final rule will implement the
changes to the 43 CFR Part 3100
regulations that are required because of
amendments Sections 352 and 371 of
the EPAct made to the Mineral Leasing
Act. A section-by-section discussion of
the changes follows:
Section 3101.2–3 Excepted Acreage
This section is revised to add the
following to the list of acreage that will
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14817-14821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2870]
[[Page 14817]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-RO4-OAR-2005-NC-0002-200538(a); FRL-8049-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-
Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in final form on March 23, 2005.
The SIP revision provides the second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Areas, which are composed of the following four counties:
Mecklenburg (Charlotte Area); Durham and Wake (Raleigh-Durham Area);
and Forsyth (Winston-Salem Area). The second 10-year maintenance plan
includes new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for carbon monoxide
for the year 2015. EPA is approving this SIP revision, including the
new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide, because it satisfies the
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas.
In addition, in this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on
its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs for
the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year carbon monoxide
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas. EPA determined that the 2015 MVEBs are adequate through a
previous action.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 23, 2006 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 24, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
0AR-2005-NC-0002, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-0AR-2005-NC-0002'', 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: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at 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. 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 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. : ``EPA-R04-
0AR-2005-NC-0002''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://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 http:/
/www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. 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
https://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 https://
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 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section at 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-9025. Ms. Amanetta Wood
can also be reached via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
III. What Is EPA's Action on the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Is EPA's Adequacy
Determination for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas' New MVEBs for the Year 2015?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
In 1994, based on measured air quality data, the Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas were able to demonstrate
attainment with the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) due to numerous control measures implemented in each
of the respective Areas. As a result of the measured air quality data,
North Carolina petitioned
[[Page 14818]]
EPA for redesignation of these three Areas to attainment for carbon
monoxide. In 1994, EPA redesignated the Winston-Salem Area to
attainment based on the measured air quality data and a 10-year
maintenance plan submitted for the Winston-Salem Area (59 FR 48399). In
1995, EPA redesignated both the Charlotte Area and the Raleigh-Durham
Area to attainment based on the measured air quality data and the 10-
year maintenance plan submitted for these areas (60 FR 39258).
The air quality maintenance plan is a requirement of the 1990 CAA
amendments for nonattainment areas that come into compliance with the
NAAQS to assure their continued maintenance of that standard. Eight
years after redesignation to attainment, section 175A(b) of the CAA
requires the state to submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period (this is known as the second
10-year maintenance plan). The second 10-year maintenance plan updates
the original 10-year carbon monoxide maintenance plan for the next 10-
year period. Thus, pursuant to the CAA section 175A(b), North Carolina
was required to submit the second 10-year maintenance plan for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas demonstrating that
it would continue to attain the carbon monoxide NAAQS in those Areas
through 2015.
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
On March 23, 2005, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
submitted a SIP revision to EPA that provided for the second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA. This second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas includes a new carbon monoxide emission inventory for 2000 which
reflects emission controls applicable for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas, and actual and projected emissions for
2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The SIP revision also establishes new MVEBs
for carbon monoxide for 2015 for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas.
The emission reduction measures for carbon monoxide emissions
implemented in the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas
from 1995 to 2005, and control measures that are projected to occur
between 2005 and 2015, are accounted for in the 2000 emission inventory
and projected emissions estimates. The following three tables provide
emissions data and projections for carbon monoxide. The on-road mobile
portion of the data was calculated with Mobile 6.2.
Table 1.--Charlotte Carbon Monoxide Area--Mecklenburg County Emission Inventory and Projected CO Emissions (2000-
2015)
[Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-road On-road
Area mobile mobile Point Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000........................................... 24.97 142.23 522.39 5.58 695.17
2005........................................... 29.42 160.64 431.03 6.43 627.52
2010........................................... 32.42 171.27 357.99 7.45 569.13
2015........................................... 34.96 181.77 328.79 8.27 553.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Raleigh-Durham Carbon Monoxide Area--Durham and Wake County Emission Inventory and Projected CO
Emissions (2000-2015)
[Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-road On-road
Area mobile mobile Point Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durham County:
2000....................................... 13.45 31.98 178.79 0.86 225.08
2005....................................... 15.44 34.12 152.32 0.91 202.79
2010....................................... 16.73 31.52 118.71 0.98 167.94
2015....................................... 17.99 28.82 105.30 1.05 153.16
Wake County:
2000....................................... 35.21 87.26 419.46 1.36 543.29
2005....................................... 41.45 97.02 362.51 1.44 502.42
2010....................................... 45.36 102.61 300.12 1.57 449.66
2015....................................... 49.21 108.12 282.39 1.69 441.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide Area--Forsyth County Emission Inventory and Projected CO Emissions (2000-
2015)
[Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-road On-road
Area mobile mobile Point Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000........................................... 25.13 40.35 259.88 2.56 327.92
2005........................................... 29.58 44.07 211.02 2.49 287.16
2010........................................... 32.10 43.50 168.17 2.61 246.38
2015........................................... 34.51 43.00 145.05 2.76 225.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14819]]
The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during
one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Charlotte,
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas continued to attain the carbon
monoxide NAAQS based on air quality data for the year 2000. Therefore,
in this SIP revision, the emissions from the year 2000 are used to
calculate a new attainment emissions level for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. The emissions from point, area,
nonroad, and mobile sources in 2000 equal 695.17 tons per day (tpd) of
carbon monoxide for Mecklenburg County, 225.08 tpd for Durham County,
543.29 tpd for Wake County, and 327.92 tpd for Forsyth County. The
projected carbon monoxide emissions for the year 2015 equal 553.79 tpd
for Mecklenburg County, 153.16 tpd for Durham County, 441.41 tpd for
Wake County, and 225.32 tpd for Forsyth County. These emission
calculations were made using the MOBILE6.2 model and the most recent
version of the nonroad model. The projected emissions are lower than
the attainment level of emissions, thus demonstrating continued
maintenance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
The safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from
all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin is for the
entire Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas and is sub-
allocated by county. The safety margin credit, or a portion thereof,
can be allocated to the transportation sector, however, the total
emission level must stay below the attainment level. The safety margin
for carbon monoxide is the difference between these amounts or, in this
case, 141.39 tpd for Mecklenburg County for 2015, 71.92 tpd for Durham
County for 2015, 101.88 tpd for Wake County for 2015, and 102.59 tpd
for Forsyth County for 2015. The emissions are projected to maintain
the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' air quality
consistent with the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
Maintenance plans and other control strategy SIPs create MVEBs for
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from
cars and trucks. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable
emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to establish and revise MVEBs in a SIP. In
this SIP revision, the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas used MOBILE6.2 to establish MVEBs for carbon monoxide for the
year 2015. The State of North Carolina has chosen to allocate the
entire safety margin to the transportation section. These MVEBs are
listed in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
Table 4.1.--Mecklenburg County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 projected
on-road 2015 MVEB with
emissions Safety margin safety margin
(tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO........................................................... 328.79 141.39 470.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.2.--Durham County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 projected
on-road 2015 MVEB with
emissions Safety margin safety margin
(tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO........................................................... 105.30 71.92 177.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.3.--Wake County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 projected
on-road 2015 MVEB with
emissions Safety margin safety margin
(tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO........................................................... 282.39 101.88 384.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.4.--Forsyth County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 on-road
emissions Safety margin MVEB with
(tons per day) safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO........................................................... 145.05 102.59 247.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MVEBs presented in Table 4.5 are directly reflective of the
combined onroad (or ``highway'') emissions for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas for carbon monoxide, plus allocation
from the available safety margin. After allocation of the safety margin
to the MVEBs there is no available safety margin for future allocation.
In summary, the new carbon monoxide MVEBs for the year 2015 are 470.18
tpd for Mecklenburg County; 177.22 tpd for Durham County; 384.27 tpd
for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for Forsyth County. The MVEBs for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas that the
[[Page 14820]]
transportation partners must use are provided in the table below.
Table 4.5.--2015 MVEBs for CO
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mecklenburg County............................................. 470.18
Durham County.................................................. 177.22
Wake County.................................................... 384.27
Forsyth County................................................. 247.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What Is EPA's Action on the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
EPA is approving North Carolina's SIP revision pertaining to the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' second 10-year
maintenance plan, including the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide.
IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Are EPA's Adequacy
Determinations for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem
Areas' New MVEBs for the Year 2015?
Under Section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e. be
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the NAAQS. Under the transportation conformity rule, at 40 CFR part 93,
projected emissions from transportation plans and programs must be
equal to or less than MVEBs for the area. If a transportation plan does
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA
policy, criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
Until MVEBs in a SIP submittal are approved by EPA, they cannot be
used for transportation conformity purposes unless EPA makes an
affirmative finding that the MVEBs contained therein are ``adequate.''
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, those MVEBs can be used by the
State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed
transportation projects ``conform'' to the SIP even though the approval
of the SIP revision containing those MVEBs has not yet been finalized.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of MVEBs in
submitted SIPs are set out in EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule at
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
Through this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on the status
of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs
for the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year maintenance
plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. The
adequacy comment period for the 2015 MVEBs began on March 29, 2005,
with EPA's posting of availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy
Web site (at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm). The adequacy comment
period for these MVEBs closed on April 28, 2005. No comments on this
submittal were received during EPA's adequacy comment period.
In a letter dated April 29, 2005, to B. Keith Overcash, Director of
the Division of Air Quality NCDENR, EPA informed the State of its
intention to find the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. Subsequently, in a Final Federal
Register notice dated May 6, 2005, (70 FR 24037) EPA found the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' 2015 carbon
monoxide MVEBs adequate. These MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria
contained in the Transportation Conformity Rule. The 2015 MVEBs for the
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas are currently being
used for transportation conformity determinations. For regional
emission analysis years that involve the year 2015 or beyond, the
applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation
conformity analysis will be the following 2015 MVEBs for carbon
monoxide: 470.18 tpd for Mecklenburg County; 177.22 tpd for Durham
County; 384.27 tpd for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for Forsyth County.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or
allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996,
[[Page 14821]]
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 23, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone.
Dated: March 14, 2006.
A. Stanley Maiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
0
40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart II--North Carolina
0
2. Section 52.1770 (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon
Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Provision State effective date EPA approval date citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, March 18, 2005............ March 24, 2006............ [Insert first page of
and Winston-Salem Carbon publication]
Monoxide Second 10-Year
Maintenance Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 06-2870 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
