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
<![CDATA[
72948
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
following site: https://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: https://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 https://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
https://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
