Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone, 72948-72953 [E7-24959]

Download as PDF 72948 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ fedregister. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512–1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ index.html. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program; 84.032 Federal Family Education Loan Program; 84.032 Federal PLUS Program; 84.033 Federal Work Study Program; 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program; and 84.268 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1071, 1082, 1087a, 1087aa, Pub. L. 108–76, Pub. L. 109– 78, Pub. L. 110–93. Dated: December 19, 2007. Diane Auer Jones, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E7–24947 Filed 12–21–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0601–200747; FRL– 8510–4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina; Redesignation of the Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on June 7, 2007, from the State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), to redesignate the RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (‘‘NAAQS’’, or ‘‘standard’’). The Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill 8-hour ozone area is comprised of Durham, Franklin, VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Dec 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties in their entireties, and Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County in North Carolina (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Triangle Area’’). EPA’s approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination that North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), including the determination that the Triangle Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle Area that contains the new subarea 2008 and 2017 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX), and an insignificance determination for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribution from motor vehicle emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the entire Triangle Area. Through this action, EPA is also finding the new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance determination, adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity. The above described actions were proposed for public comment on October 3, 2007; no comments were received. EPA is also making corrections to inadvertent errors made in the proposed rulemaking published on October 3, 2007, (72 FR 56312) to Tables 1, 6, and 7. DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective December 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2007–0601. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 through 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 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Nacosta Ward can be reached via telephone at (404) 562–9140 or electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Is the Background for the Actions? II. What Actions Is EPA Taking? III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions? V. Final Action VI. When Is This Action Effective? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Is the Background for the Actions? On June 7, 2007, North Carolina, through NCDENR, submitted a request to redesignate the Triangle Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, and for EPA approval of the North Carolina SIP revision containing a maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. In an action published on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312), EPA proposed to approve the redesignation of the Triangle Area to attainment. EPA also proposed approval of North Carolina’s SIP revision including a plan for maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP revision, and proposed to approve the new subarea 1 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area that were contained in the maintenance plan. In the October 3, 2007, proposed action, EPA also provided information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for the Triangle Area subarea NOX MVEBs and VOC insignificance determination. EPA received no comments on the 1 The term ‘‘subarea’’ refers to the portion of the area, in a nonattainment or maintenance area, for which the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) apply. In this case, the ‘‘subareas’’ are established at the county level so this indicates that the MVEBs cover individual counties and also indicates to transportation conformity implementers in this area that there are separate county-level MVEBs for each county in this area. EPA’s Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality Standards explains more about the possible geographical extent of a MVEB, how these geographical areas are defined, and how transportation conformity is implemented in these different geographical areas. E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC.Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX MVEBS attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed for [kilograms per day] attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS County 2008 2017 remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court’s rejection of EPA’s Chatham ........................... 1,565 948 reasons for implementing the 8-hour Durham ............................. 13,106 4,960 Franklin ............................. 2,048 1,139 standard in certain nonattainment areas Granville ............................ 4,649 1,714 under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By Johnston ........................... 12,583 5,958 limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand Orange .............................. 9,933 3,742 EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard Person .............................. 1,359 791 and those anti-backsliding provisions of Wake ................................. 36,615 16,352 the Phase 1 Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th EPA’s adequacy public comment decision affirmed the December 22, period on the subarea NOX MVEBs and 2006, decision that EPA had improperly the VOC insignificance determination failed to retain measures required for 1began on March 21, 2007, and closed on hour nonattainment areas under the April 20, 2007. No comments were anti-backsliding provisions of the received during EPA’s adequacy public regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New comment period. Through this Federal Source Review (NSR) requirements Register document, EPA is finding the based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX classification; (2) Section 185 penalty MVEBs, as contained in North fees for 1-hour severe or extreme Carolina’s submittal, adequate. These nonattainment areas; and (3) measures subarea NOX MVEBs meet the adequacy to be implemented pursuant to section criteria contained in the transportation 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the conformity rule. The new subarea NOX contingency of an area not making MVEBs must be used for future reasonable further progress toward transportation conformity attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for determinations. EPA is also finding failure to attain that NAAQS. The June adequate North Carolina’s 8th decision clarified that the Court’s demonstration that the VOC emissions reference to conformity requirements for from motor vehicles are insignificant, anti-backsliding purposes was limited to and therefore no MVEBs are necessary for VOC. As a result of this finding (and requiring the continued use of 1-hour approval which is discussed later in this MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were rulemaking), the transportation partners available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already are not required to complete a regional required under EPA’s conformity emissions analysis for VOC as a precursor for the 8-hour ozone standard regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour conformity determinations for transportation conformity, but all of are not required for anti-backsliding the other transportation conformity purposes. requirements must be met. With respect to the requirement for As was discussed in greater detail in transportation conformity under the 1the October 3, 2007, proposal, this hour standard, the Court in its June 8th redesignation is for the Triangle Area’s decision clarified that for those areas 8-hour ozone designation finalized in with 1-hour MVEBs in their 1-hour 2004 (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2007). Various aspects of EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets ozone implementation rule were challenged in court and on December must be used for 8-hour conformity 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for determinations until replaced by 8-hour the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. budgets. To meet this requirement, Circuit Court) vacated EPA’s Phase 1 conformity determinations in such areas Implementation Rule for the 8-hour must continue to comply with the Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, applicable requirements of EPA’s 2004). South Coast Air Quality conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES October 3, 2007, proposal. This rule is EPA’s final action following the October 3, 2007, proposal. In this action, EPA is also announcing its finding that the new subarea NOX MVEBs for the Triangle Area and the VOC insignificance determination are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The new subarea NOX MVEBs included in the maintenance plan are as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Dec 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 72949 93. A portion of the Triangle Area was previously designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and thus has 1-hour MVEBs which are currently being used in that area to demonstrate transportation conformity. For the above reasons, and those set forth in the October 3, 2007, proposal for the redesignation of the Triangle Area, EPA does not believe that the Court’s rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Triangle Area to attainment. Even in light of the Court’s decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. II. What Actions is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina’s redesignation request and to change the legal designation of the Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving North Carolina’s 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Triangle Area in attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2017. These approval actions are based on EPA’s determination that North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the Triangle Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA’s analyses of North Carolina’s 8-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan are described in detail in the proposed rule published October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312). Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving also includes new subarea 2008 and 2017 MVEBs for NOX; and a VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. In this action, EPA is approving these new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. For regional emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2017, the applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses) are the new subarea 2008 NOX MVEBs. For regional emission analysis years that involve the year 2017 and beyond, the applicable E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1 72950 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations an MPO’s planning boundary (40 CFR 93.101). Donut areas are not considered isolated rural nonattainment and [kilograms per day] maintenance areas under the transportation conformity rule. County 2008 2017 Sections 93.124(c) and (d) of the Total ........................... 7,741 6,049 transportation conformity rule provide the regulatory mechanism for establishing and implementing subarea III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions? SIP budgets. In July 2004, EPA released EPA has determined that the Triangle a guidance document that provided Area has attained the 8-hour ozone additional details for implementing standard and has also determined that conformity in multi-jurisdictional areas, North Carolina has demonstrated that including establishing subarea SIP all other criteria for the redesignation of budgets in areas with multiple MPOs, the Triangle Area from nonattainment to entitled ‘‘Companion Guidance for the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS July 1, 2004 Final Transportation have been met. See, section 107(d)(3)(E) Conformity Rule Conformity of the CAA. EPA is also taking final Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional action to approve the maintenance plan Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for the Triangle Area as meeting the for Existing and New Air Quality requirements of sections 175A and Standards,’’ EPA 420–B–04–012. While 107(d) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is that guidance did not address the case finding adequate and approving the new where subarea budgets are established TABLE 1.—TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX subarea 2008 and 2017 NO MVEBs, X for a donut area, such budgets can be MVEBS and the VOC insignificance established in a manner consistent with [kilograms per day] determination contained in North the requirements of the CAA that Carolina’s maintenance plan because ensures that conformity determinations County 2008 2017 these MVEBs and the insignificance in the Triangle Area will continue to determination are consistent with meet federal conformity requirements. Chatham ........................... 1,565 948 EPA believes that statutory and Durham ............................. 13,106 4,960 maintenance for the Triangle Area. In regulatory requirements can be met for Franklin ............................. 2,048 1,139 the October 3, 2007, proposal to Granville ............................ 4,649 1,714 redesignate the Triangle Area, EPA the entire nonattainment or Johnston ........................... 12,583 5,958 described the applicable criteria for maintenance area if conformity is Orange .............................. 9,933 3,742 redesignation to attainment and its determined for every subarea SIP budget Person .............................. 1,359 791 analysis of how those criteria have been at least every four years. Only by Wake ................................. 36,615 16,352 met. The rationale for EPA’s findings meeting all subarea SIP budgets can the and actions is set forth in the proposed SIP’s overall purpose be met. As described on page 21 of the 2004 TABLE 6.—TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX rulemaking and summarized in this rulemaking. guidance, CAA section 176(c) states that MVEBS* the federal government and MPOs IV. What Are the Effects of These [kilograms per day] cannot approve transportation activities Actions? unless they conform to the SIP and its County 2008 2017 Approval of the redesignation request budgets. In a nonattainment or maintenance area with more than one Chatham ........................... 1,565 948 changes the legal designation of the Durham ............................. 13,106 4,960 Triangle Area for the 8-hour ozone MPO, all MPOs must conform even if Franklin ............................. 2,048 1,139 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR Part 81. The the SIP has established subarea budgets. Granville ............................ 4,649 1,714 approval also incorporates into the EPA believes that this same legal Johnston ........................... 12,583 5,958 North Carolina SIP a plan for standard applies in the case where the Orange .............................. 9,933 3,742 maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS SIP establishes a subarea budget for a Person .............................. 1,359 791 in the Triangle Area through 2017. The donut area. Wake ................................. 36,615 16,352 maintenance plan includes contingency In the case of the Triangle Area 8-hour * Includes an allocation from the available measures to remedy future violations of ozone SIP, subarea budgets have been NOX safety margins (see Table 7). the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and a VOC established for the Area’s MPOs and insignificance determination under 40 donut areas. Conformity determinations TABLE 7.—NOX SAFETY MARGIN CFR 93.109(k) for regional motor vehicle must be completed for all subarea ALLOCATION emissions contribution to the 8-hour budgets according to the statutory ozone pollution in the Triangle Area. requirement to determine conformity at [kilograms per day] Additionally, the maintenance plan least every four years in areas with establishes new subarea NOX MVEBs for MPOs, transportation plans, and County 2008 2017 the years 2008 and 2017 for each county Transportation Improvement Programs Chatham ........................... 204 190 in the Triangle Area. These subarea (TIPs). MPOs must determine Durham ............................. 1,191 827 budgets are established for each conformity to their respective Franklin ............................. 186 190 metropolitan planning organization transportation plans and TIPs every four Granville ............................ 606 343 years, and the interagency consultation Johnston ........................... 1,144 993 (MPO), and in some instances, counties process for the Triangle Area should Orange .............................. 903 624 that are ‘‘donut areas.’’ The conformity ensure that conformity is demonstrated Person .............................. 177 158 rule defines a donut area as the portion to any subarea budget for a donut area Wake ................................. 3,329 2,725 of a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area that is located outside at least every four years as well. In the mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES budgets, for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity analyses, are the new subarea 2017 NOX MVEBs. In this action, EPA is also finding adequate and approving the Triangle Area’s new subarea MVEBs for NOX. Further, EPA is finding adequate and approving the VOC insignificance determination for motor vehicles’ contribution to the 8hour ozone pollution for the Triangle Area. EPA is also making corrections to inadvertent errors made to Table 1. ‘‘TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX MVEBS,’’ Table 6. ‘‘TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX MVEBs,’’ and Table 7. ‘‘NOX SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION’’ in the proposed rulemaking published on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312). The error was the misspelling of Granville County as ‘‘Graham County.’’ See the corrected tables below: VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Dec 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 TABLE 7.—NOX SAFETY MARGIN ALLOCATION—Continued Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations event that an MPO or donut area cannot demonstrate conformity on a four-year cycle, the other subareas cannot complete a conformity determination until all subareas conform. See, EPA’s 2004 guidance (pages 20–21) for further information regarding the conformity implications of not meeting subarea budgets. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES V. Final Action After evaluating North Carolina’s redesignation request, EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal designation of the Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving into the North Carolina SIP the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle Area, which includes the subarea 2008 and 2017 MVEBs for NOX, and VOC insignificance determination for the entire Triangle Area. Within 24 months from the publication date for this final rule, the North Carolina transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to these new subarea NOX MVEBs pursuant 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA– LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005. Additionally, the Triangle Area transportation partners should note EPA’s finding of adequacy and approval for the VOC insignificance determination in future transportation conformity determinations. VI. When Is This Action Effective? EPA finds that there is good cause for these determinations (approval of redesignation and 10-year maintenance plan, including the 2017 MVEBs) to become effective on December 26, 2007, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of these determinations, which relieves the Triangle Area from certain CAA requirements that otherwise would apply to it. The expedited effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction’’ and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.’’ A redesignation to attainment relieves the Triangle Area from certain CAA requirements that otherwise would apply to it. North Carolina’s relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Dec 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and provides good cause to make this rule effective December 26, 2007, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Whereas here, the final rule relieves obligations associated with nonattainment designations rather than imposing these obligations on affected parties, such as the State of North Carolina. Therefore, there is no need for time to adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect. VII. 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 (Pub. L.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 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 72951 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 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. 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. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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. 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 February 25, 2008. 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 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1 72952 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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) of the CAA). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Subpart II—North Carolina 2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by adding a new entry at the end of the table for ‘‘8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina area’’ to read as follows: I Dated: December 13, 2007. J.I. Palmer, Jr., Regional Administrator, Region 4. 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 is amended as follows: I § 52.1770 PART 52—[AMENDED] * 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: I Identification of plan. * * (e) * * * * * EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS Provision State effective date EPA approval date * * * 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina area (Durham, Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties in their entireties, and Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County). * June 7, 2007 ......... * December 26, 2007. PART 81—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 4. In § 81.334, the table entitled ‘‘North Carolina-Ozone (8-Hour I Standard)’’ is amended under ‘‘RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill, NC’’ by revising the entries for ‘‘Chatham County (part) Baldwin Township, Center Township, New Hope Township, Williams Township,’’ ‘‘Durham County,’’ ‘‘Franklin County,’’ ‘‘Granville County,’’ Federal Register citation * * [Insert first page of publication] ‘‘Johnston County,’’ ‘‘Orange County,’’ ‘‘Person County,’’ and ‘‘Wake County’’ to read as follows: § 81.334 * * North Carolina. * * * NORTH CAROLINA—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) Designation a Category/classification Designated area Date 1 * * * Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC: Chatham County (part) Baldwin Township, Center Township, New Hope Township, Williams Township. Durham County ................................................................. Franklin County ................................................................. Granville County ................................................................ Johnston County ................................................................ Orange County .................................................................. Person County ................................................................... Wake County ..................................................................... * * * * * This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. This action is effective ber 26, 2007. * * DecemDecem- Attainment. Decem- Attainment. Decem- Attainment. Decem- Attainment. Decem- Attainment. Decem- Attainment. * * mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until April 15, 2008. 3 November 22, 2004. 1 This 2 Early 18:48 Dec 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 * Attainment. Decem- Type Attainment. a VerDate Aug<31>2005 Date 1 Type E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1 * Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations * * * * * [FR Doc. E7–24959 Filed 12–21–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0655; FRL–8510–6] Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Iowa; Clean Air Mercury Rule Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve the State Plan submitted by Iowa on August 15, 2006, and updates to rules submitted on April 26, 2007. The plan addresses the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA has determined that the submitted State Plan fully meets the CAMR requirements for Iowa. CAMR requires States to regulate emissions of mercury (Hg) from large coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets for annual EGU Hg emissions and requires States to submit State Plans to ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions will not exceed the applicable State budget. States have the flexibility to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participating in the EPA-administered CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the State Plan that EPA is approving today, Iowa has met the CAMR requirements by electing to participate in the EPA trading program. DATES: This rule is effective on January 25, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0655. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 Dec 21, 2007 Jkt 214001 City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460 or by email at jay.michael@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Taking? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR? III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans? IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR? V. Analysis of Iowa’s CAMR State Plan Submittal A. State Budgets B. CAMR State Plan VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is taking final action to approve Iowa’s State Plan, submitted on August 15, 2006, and the incorporation by reference date changes submitted on April 26, 2007. In its State Plan, Iowa has met CAMR by requiring certain coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program addressing Hg emissions. EPA proposed to approve Iowa’s request to amend the State’s Plan on September 5, 2007 (72 FR 50913). No comments were received. EPA is finalizing the approval as proposed based on the rationale stated in the proposal and in this final action. II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR? CAMR was published by EPA on May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28606, ‘‘Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Final Rule’’). In this rule, acting pursuant to its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), EPA required that all States and the District of Columbia (all of which are referred to herein as States) meet Statewide annual budgets limiting Hg emissions from coal-fired EGUs (as defined in 40 CFR 60.24(h)(8)) under CAA section 111(d). EPA required all States to submit State Plans with control measures that ensure that total, annual Hg emissions from the coal-fired EGUs located in the respective States do not exceed the applicable statewide annual EGU mercury budget. Under CAMR, States may implement and enforce these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program or by adopting any other PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 72953 effective and enforceable control measures. CAA section 111(d) requires States, and along with CAA section 301(d) and the Tribal Air Rule (40 CFR part 49) allows Tribes granted treatment as States (TAS), to submit State Plans to EPA that implement and enforce the standards of performance. CAMR explains what must be included in State Plans to address the requirements of CAA section 111(d). The State Plans were due to EPA by November 17, 2006. Under 40 CFR 60.27(b), the EPA proposes, and subsequently approves or disapproves, the State Plans. III. What Are the General Requirements of CAMR State Plans? CAMR establishes Statewide annual EGU Hg emission budgets and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2017. The second phase of reductions starts in 2018 and continues thereafter. CAMR requires States to implement the budgets by either: (1) Requiring coal-fired EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program; or (2) adopting other coal-fired EGU control measures of the respective State’s choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State annual EGU Hg budget. Each State Plan must require coalfired EGUs to comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 75 concerning Hg mass emissions. Each State Plan must also show that the State has the legal authority to adopt emission standards and compliance schedules necessary for attainment and maintenance of the State’s annual EGU Hg budget and to require the owners and operators of coal-fired EGUs in the State to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 75. IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR? Each State Plan must impose control requirements that the State demonstrates will limit Statewide annual Hg emissions from new and existing coal-fired EGUs to the amount of the State’s applicable annual EGU Hg budget. States have the flexibility to choose the type of EGU control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAMR. EPA anticipates that many States will choose to meet the CAMR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAMR capand-trade program. EPA also anticipates E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72948-72953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24959]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0601-200747; FRL-8510-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina; 
Redesignation of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-Hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on 
June 7, 2007, from the State of North Carolina, through the North 
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), to 
redesignate the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (``NAAQS'', or ``standard''). The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 
8-hour ozone area is comprised of Durham, Franklin, Granville, 
Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties in their entireties, and 
Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County in 
North Carolina (hereafter referred to as the ``Triangle Area''). EPA's 
approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination 
that North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle Area has met the 
criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), including the determination that the Triangle Area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to 
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the 8-hour 
ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle Area that contains the new 
subarea 2008 and 2017 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and an insignificance determination 
for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribution from motor vehicle 
emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the entire Triangle Area. 
Through this action, EPA is also finding the new subarea 2008 and 2017 
NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance determination, 
adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity. The above 
described actions were proposed for public comment on October 3, 2007; 
no comments were received. EPA is also making corrections to 
inadvertent errors made in the proposed rulemaking published on October 
3, 2007, (72 FR 56312) to Tables 1, 6, and 7.

DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective December 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0601. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information 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 through 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 federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Nacosta Ward can be 
reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or electronic mail at 
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for the Actions?
II. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
V. Final Action
VI. When Is This Action Effective?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for the Actions?

    On June 7, 2007, North Carolina, through NCDENR, submitted a 
request to redesignate the Triangle Area to attainment for the 8-hour 
ozone standard, and for EPA approval of the North Carolina SIP revision 
containing a maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. In an action 
published on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312), EPA proposed to approve the 
redesignation of the Triangle Area to attainment. EPA also proposed 
approval of North Carolina's SIP revision including a plan for 
maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP revision, and proposed to approve 
the new subarea \1\ 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC 
insignificance determination for the Triangle Area that were contained 
in the maintenance plan. In the October 3, 2007, proposed action, EPA 
also provided information on the status of its transportation 
conformity adequacy determination for the Triangle Area subarea 
NOX MVEBs and VOC insignificance determination. EPA received 
no comments on the

[[Page 72949]]

October 3, 2007, proposal. This rule is EPA's final action following 
the October 3, 2007, proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``subarea'' refers to the portion of the area, in a 
nonattainment or maintenance area, for which the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (MVEBs) apply. In this case, the ``subareas'' are 
established at the county level so this indicates that the MVEBs 
cover individual counties and also indicates to transportation 
conformity implementers in this area that there are separate county-
level MVEBs for each county in this area. EPA's Companion Guidance 
for the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: 
Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality Standards 
explains more about the possible geographical extent of a MVEB, how 
these geographical areas are defined, and how transportation 
conformity is implemented in these different geographical areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is also announcing its finding that the new 
subarea NOX MVEBs for the Triangle Area and the VOC 
insignificance determination are adequate for transportation conformity 
purposes. The new subarea NOX MVEBs included in the 
maintenance plan are as follows:

                      Triangle Subarea NO\X\ MVEBs
                           [kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        County                            2008     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham...............................................    1,565      948
Durham................................................   13,106    4,960
Franklin..............................................    2,048    1,139
Granville.............................................    4,649    1,714
Johnston..............................................   12,583    5,958
Orange................................................    9,933    3,742
Person................................................    1,359      791
Wake..................................................   36,615   16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's adequacy public comment period on the subarea NOX 
MVEBs and the VOC insignificance determination began on March 21, 2007, 
and closed on April 20, 2007. No comments were received during EPA's 
adequacy public comment period. Through this Federal Register document, 
EPA is finding the new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, as 
contained in North Carolina's submittal, adequate. These subarea 
NOX MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria contained in the 
transportation conformity rule. The new subarea NOX MVEBs 
must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. EPA 
is also finding adequate North Carolina's demonstration that the VOC 
emissions from motor vehicles are insignificant, and therefore no MVEBs 
are necessary for VOC. As a result of this finding (and approval which 
is discussed later in this rulemaking), the transportation partners are 
not required to complete a regional emissions analysis for VOC as a 
precursor for the 8-hour ozone standard for transportation conformity, 
but all of the other transportation conformity requirements must be 
met.
    As was discussed in greater detail in the October 3, 2007, 
proposal, this redesignation is for the Triangle Area's 8-hour ozone 
designation finalized in 2004 (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2007). Various 
aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were 
challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's 
Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 
23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. 
(SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC.Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 
response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit Court 
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those 
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the 
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently 
classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour 
nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for 
emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's 
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in 
certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule 
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision 
affirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed 
to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the 
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area 
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour 
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour 
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be 
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on 
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress 
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that 
NAAQS. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to 
conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to 
requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were 
available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already 
required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified 
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-
backsliding purposes.
    With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under 
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that 
for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their 1-hour maintenance plans, 
anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used 
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. 
To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must 
continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. A portion of the Triangle Area was 
previously designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and 
thus has 1-hour MVEBs which are currently being used in that area to 
demonstrate transportation conformity.
    For the above reasons, and those set forth in the October 3, 2007, 
proposal for the redesignation of the Triangle Area, EPA does not 
believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to 
this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not 
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the 
Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no 
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Triangle Area to 
attainment. Even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is 
appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and 
longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.

II. What Actions is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's 
redesignation request and to change the legal designation of the 
Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. EPA is also approving North Carolina's 8-hour ozone maintenance 
plan for the Triangle Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria 
for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is 
designed to help keep the Triangle Area in attainment for the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS through 2017. These approval actions are based on EPA's 
determination that North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle 
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in 
the CAA, including a demonstration that the Triangle Area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's analyses of North Carolina's 8-hour 
ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan are described in 
detail in the proposed rule published October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving 
also includes new subarea 2008 and 2017 MVEBs for NOX; and a 
VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. In this action, 
EPA is approving these new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, 
and the VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. For 
regional emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2017, the 
applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting transportation 
conformity analyses) are the new subarea 2008 NOX MVEBs. For 
regional emission analysis years that involve the year 2017 and beyond, 
the applicable

[[Page 72950]]

budgets, for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity 
analyses, are the new subarea 2017 NOX MVEBs. In this 
action, EPA is also finding adequate and approving the Triangle Area's 
new subarea MVEBs for NOX. Further, EPA is finding adequate 
and approving the VOC insignificance determination for motor vehicles' 
contribution to the 8-hour ozone pollution for the Triangle Area.
    EPA is also making corrections to inadvertent errors made to Table 
1. ``TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX MVEBS,'' Table 6. ``TRIANGLE 
SUBAREA NOX MVEBs,'' and Table 7. ``NOX SAFETY 
MARGIN ALLOCATION'' in the proposed rulemaking published on October 3, 
2007 (72 FR 56312). The error was the misspelling of Granville County 
as ``Graham County.'' See the corrected tables below:

                  Table 1.--Triangle Subarea NOX MVEBs
                           [kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        County                            2008     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham...............................................    1,565      948
Durham................................................   13,106    4,960
Franklin..............................................    2,048    1,139
Granville.............................................    4,649    1,714
Johnston..............................................   12,583    5,958
Orange................................................    9,933    3,742
Person................................................    1,359      791
Wake..................................................   36,615   16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  Table 6.--Triangle Subarea NOX MVEBs*
                           [kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        County                            2008     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham...............................................    1,565      948
Durham................................................   13,106    4,960
Franklin..............................................    2,048    1,139
Granville.............................................    4,649    1,714
Johnston..............................................   12,583    5,958
Orange................................................    9,933    3,742
Person................................................    1,359      791
Wake..................................................   36,615  16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes an allocation from the available NOX safety margins (see
  Table 7).


                 Table 7.--NOX Safety Margin Allocation
                           [kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        County                            2008     2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham...............................................      204      190
Durham................................................    1,191      827
Franklin..............................................      186      190
Granville.............................................      606      343
Johnston..............................................    1,144      993
Orange................................................      903      624
Person................................................      177      158
Wake..................................................    3,329    2,725
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................    7,741    6,049
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?

    EPA has determined that the Triangle Area has attained the 8-hour 
ozone standard and has also determined that North Carolina has 
demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of the 
Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS have been met. See, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also 
taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Triangle 
Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d) of the 
CAA. Furthermore, EPA is finding adequate and approving the new subarea 
2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance 
determination contained in North Carolina's maintenance plan because 
these MVEBs and the insignificance determination are consistent with 
maintenance for the Triangle Area. In the October 3, 2007, proposal to 
redesignate the Triangle Area, EPA described the applicable criteria 
for redesignation to attainment and its analysis of how those criteria 
have been met. The rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set 
forth in the proposed rulemaking and summarized in this rulemaking.

IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation 
of the Triangle Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR Part 
81. The approval also incorporates into the North Carolina SIP a plan 
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Triangle Area through 
2017. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy 
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and a VOC insignificance 
determination under 40 CFR 93.109(k) for regional motor vehicle 
emissions contribution to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Triangle 
Area. Additionally, the maintenance plan establishes new subarea 
NOX MVEBs for the years 2008 and 2017 for each county in the 
Triangle Area. These subarea budgets are established for each 
metropolitan planning organization (MPO), and in some instances, 
counties that are ``donut areas.'' The conformity rule defines a donut 
area as the portion of a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area 
that is located outside an MPO's planning boundary (40 CFR 93.101). 
Donut areas are not considered isolated rural nonattainment and 
maintenance areas under the transportation conformity rule.
    Sections 93.124(c) and (d) of the transportation conformity rule 
provide the regulatory mechanism for establishing and implementing 
subarea SIP budgets. In July 2004, EPA released a guidance document 
that provided additional details for implementing conformity in multi-
jurisdictional areas, including establishing subarea SIP budgets in 
areas with multiple MPOs, entitled ``Companion Guidance for the July 1, 
2004 Final Transportation Conformity Rule Conformity Implementation in 
Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing 
and New Air Quality Standards,'' EPA 420-B-04-012. While that guidance 
did not address the case where subarea budgets are established for a 
donut area, such budgets can be established in a manner consistent with 
the requirements of the CAA that ensures that conformity determinations 
in the Triangle Area will continue to meet federal conformity 
requirements.
    EPA believes that statutory and regulatory requirements can be met 
for the entire nonattainment or maintenance area if conformity is 
determined for every subarea SIP budget at least every four years. Only 
by meeting all subarea SIP budgets can the SIP's overall purpose be 
met. As described on page 21 of the 2004 guidance, CAA section 176(c) 
states that the federal government and MPOs cannot approve 
transportation activities unless they conform to the SIP and its 
budgets. In a nonattainment or maintenance area with more than one MPO, 
all MPOs must conform even if the SIP has established subarea budgets. 
EPA believes that this same legal standard applies in the case where 
the SIP establishes a subarea budget for a donut area.
    In the case of the Triangle Area 8-hour ozone SIP, subarea budgets 
have been established for the Area's MPOs and donut areas. Conformity 
determinations must be completed for all subarea budgets according to 
the statutory requirement to determine conformity at least every four 
years in areas with MPOs, transportation plans, and Transportation 
Improvement Programs (TIPs). MPOs must determine conformity to their 
respective transportation plans and TIPs every four years, and the 
interagency consultation process for the Triangle Area should ensure 
that conformity is demonstrated to any subarea budget for a donut area 
at least every four years as well. In the

[[Page 72951]]

event that an MPO or donut area cannot demonstrate conformity on a 
four-year cycle, the other subareas cannot complete a conformity 
determination until all subareas conform. See, EPA's 2004 guidance 
(pages 20-21) for further information regarding the conformity 
implications of not meeting subarea budgets.

V. Final Action

    After evaluating North Carolina's redesignation request, EPA is 
taking final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal 
designation of the Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving into 
the North Carolina SIP the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 
Triangle Area, which includes the subarea 2008 and 2017 MVEBs for 
NOX, and VOC insignificance determination for the entire 
Triangle Area. Within 24 months from the publication date for this 
final rule, the North Carolina transportation partners will need to 
demonstrate conformity to these new subarea NOX MVEBs 
pursuant 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users 
(SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005. 
Additionally, the Triangle Area transportation partners should note 
EPA's finding of adequacy and approval for the VOC insignificance 
determination in future transportation conformity determinations.

VI. When Is This Action Effective?

    EPA finds that there is good cause for these determinations 
(approval of redesignation and 10-year maintenance plan, including the 
2017 MVEBs) to become effective on December 26, 2007, because a delayed 
effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of these 
determinations, which relieves the Triangle Area from certain CAA 
requirements that otherwise would apply to it. The expedited effective 
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which 
provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after 
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves 
a restriction'' and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an 
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise 
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the 
rule.''
    A redesignation to attainment relieves the Triangle Area from 
certain CAA requirements that otherwise would apply to it. North 
Carolina's relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow 
an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and 
provides good cause to make this rule effective December 26, 2007, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting 
period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a 
reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final 
rule takes effect. Whereas here, the final rule relieves obligations 
associated with nonattainment designations rather than imposing these 
obligations on affected parties, such as the State of North Carolina. 
Therefore, there is no need for time to adjust and prepare before the 
rule takes effect.

VII. 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 (Pub. L.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 and because the Agency does not have 
reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk 
or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.
    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. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
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. 
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 February 25, 2008. 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

[[Page 72952]]

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) of the CAA).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: December 13, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 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 ``8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill, North Carolina area'' 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the     June 7, 2007...........  December 26, 2007......  [Insert first page
 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North                                                           of publication]
 Carolina area (Durham, Franklin,
 Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and
 Wake Counties in their entireties, and
 Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams
 Townships in Chatham County).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina-Ozone (8-Hour 
Standard)'' is amended under ``Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC'' by 
revising the entries for ``Chatham County (part) Baldwin Township, 
Center Township, New Hope Township, Williams Township,'' ``Durham 
County,'' ``Franklin County,'' ``Granville County,'' ``Johnston 
County,'' ``Orange County,'' ``Person County,'' and ``Wake County'' to 
read as follows:


Sec.  81.334  North Carolina.

* * * * *

                                     North Carolina--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Designation \a\                 Category/classification
             Designated area             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date \1\             Type           Date \1\           Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC:
    Chatham County (part) Baldwin         This action is        Attainment....
     Township, Center Township, New Hope   effective December
     Township, Williams Township.          26, 2007.
    Durham County.......................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
    Franklin County.....................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
    Granville County....................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
    Johnston County.....................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
    Orange County.......................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
    Person County.......................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
    Wake County.........................  This action is        Attainment....
                                           effective December
                                           26, 2007.
 
                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Early Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until April 15, 2008.
\3\ November 22, 2004.


[[Page 72953]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-24959 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P