

[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 14817-14821]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-11]                         


[[Page 14817]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-RO4-OAR-2005-NC-0002-200538(a); FRL-8049-2]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North 
Carolina: Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas Second 10-
Year Maintenance Plan for the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the North Carolina State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in final form on March 23, 2005. 
The SIP revision provides the second 10-year maintenance plan for the 
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide 
Maintenance Areas, which are composed of the following four counties: 
Mecklenburg (Charlotte Area); Durham and Wake (Raleigh-Durham Area); 
and Forsyth (Winston-Salem Area). The second 10-year maintenance plan 
includes new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for carbon monoxide 
for the year 2015. EPA is approving this SIP revision, including the 
new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide, because it satisfies the 
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the second 10-year 
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas.
    In addition, in this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on 
its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs for 
the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year carbon monoxide 
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas. EPA determined that the 2015 MVEBs are adequate through a 
previous action.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 23, 2006 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 24, 2006. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
0AR-2005-NC-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: wood.amanetta@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-0AR-2005-NC-0002'', Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality 
Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. : ``EPA-R04-
0AR-2005-NC-0002''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Wood of the Air Quality 
Modeling and Transportation Section at the Air Planning Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9025. Ms. Amanetta Wood 
can also be reached via electronic mail at wood.amanetta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
III. What Is EPA's Action on the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?
IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Is EPA's Adequacy 
Determination for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas' New MVEBs for the Year 2015?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Action?

    In 1994, based on measured air quality data, the Charlotte, 
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas were able to demonstrate 
attainment with the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) due to numerous control measures implemented in each 
of the respective Areas. As a result of the measured air quality data, 
North Carolina petitioned

[[Page 14818]]

EPA for redesignation of these three Areas to attainment for carbon 
monoxide. In 1994, EPA redesignated the Winston-Salem Area to 
attainment based on the measured air quality data and a 10-year 
maintenance plan submitted for the Winston-Salem Area (59 FR 48399). In 
1995, EPA redesignated both the Charlotte Area and the Raleigh-Durham 
Area to attainment based on the measured air quality data and the 10-
year maintenance plan submitted for these areas (60 FR 39258).
    The air quality maintenance plan is a requirement of the 1990 CAA 
amendments for nonattainment areas that come into compliance with the 
NAAQS to assure their continued maintenance of that standard. Eight 
years after redesignation to attainment, section 175A(b) of the CAA 
requires the state to submit a revised maintenance plan which 
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 
years following the initial 10-year period (this is known as the second 
10-year maintenance plan). The second 10-year maintenance plan updates 
the original 10-year carbon monoxide maintenance plan for the next 10-
year period. Thus, pursuant to the CAA section 175A(b), North Carolina 
was required to submit the second 10-year maintenance plan for the 
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas demonstrating that 
it would continue to attain the carbon monoxide NAAQS in those Areas 
through 2015.

II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?

    On March 23, 2005, the State of North Carolina, through the North 
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 
submitted a SIP revision to EPA that provided for the second 10-year 
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA. This second 10-year 
maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas includes a new carbon monoxide emission inventory for 2000 which 
reflects emission controls applicable for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas, and actual and projected emissions for 
2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The SIP revision also establishes new MVEBs 
for carbon monoxide for 2015 for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 
Winston-Salem Areas.
    The emission reduction measures for carbon monoxide emissions 
implemented in the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas 
from 1995 to 2005, and control measures that are projected to occur 
between 2005 and 2015, are accounted for in the 2000 emission inventory 
and projected emissions estimates. The following three tables provide 
emissions data and projections for carbon monoxide. The on-road mobile 
portion of the data was calculated with Mobile 6.2.

Table 1.--Charlotte Carbon Monoxide Area--Mecklenburg County Emission Inventory and Projected CO Emissions (2000-
                                                      2015)
                                          [Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-road     On-road
                                                     Area        mobile       mobile       Point        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...........................................        24.97       142.23       522.39         5.58       695.17
2005...........................................        29.42       160.64       431.03         6.43       627.52
2010...........................................        32.42       171.27       357.99         7.45       569.13
2015...........................................        34.96       181.77       328.79         8.27       553.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2.--Raleigh-Durham Carbon Monoxide Area--Durham and Wake County Emission Inventory and Projected CO
                                              Emissions (2000-2015)
                                          [Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-road     On-road
                                                     Area        mobile       mobile       Point        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durham County:
    2000.......................................        13.45        31.98       178.79         0.86       225.08
    2005.......................................        15.44        34.12       152.32         0.91       202.79
    2010.......................................        16.73        31.52       118.71         0.98       167.94
    2015.......................................        17.99        28.82       105.30         1.05       153.16
Wake County:
    2000.......................................        35.21        87.26       419.46         1.36       543.29
    2005.......................................        41.45        97.02       362.51         1.44       502.42
    2010.......................................        45.36       102.61       300.12         1.57       449.66
    2015.......................................        49.21       108.12       282.39         1.69       441.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 3.--Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide Area--Forsyth County Emission Inventory and Projected CO Emissions (2000-
                                                      2015)
                                          [Calculated in tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-road     On-road
                                                     Area        mobile       mobile       Point        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000...........................................        25.13        40.35       259.88         2.56       327.92
2005...........................................        29.58        44.07       211.02         2.49       287.16
2010...........................................        32.10        43.50       168.17         2.61       246.38
2015...........................................        34.51        43.00       145.05         2.76       225.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14819]]

    The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during 
one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Charlotte, 
Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas continued to attain the carbon 
monoxide NAAQS based on air quality data for the year 2000. Therefore, 
in this SIP revision, the emissions from the year 2000 are used to 
calculate a new attainment emissions level for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. The emissions from point, area, 
nonroad, and mobile sources in 2000 equal 695.17 tons per day (tpd) of 
carbon monoxide for Mecklenburg County, 225.08 tpd for Durham County, 
543.29 tpd for Wake County, and 327.92 tpd for Forsyth County. The 
projected carbon monoxide emissions for the year 2015 equal 553.79 tpd 
for Mecklenburg County, 153.16 tpd for Durham County, 441.41 tpd for 
Wake County, and 225.32 tpd for Forsyth County. These emission 
calculations were made using the MOBILE6.2 model and the most recent 
version of the nonroad model. The projected emissions are lower than 
the attainment level of emissions, thus demonstrating continued 
maintenance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
    The safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of 
emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from 
all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin is for the 
entire Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas and is sub-
allocated by county. The safety margin credit, or a portion thereof, 
can be allocated to the transportation sector, however, the total 
emission level must stay below the attainment level. The safety margin 
for carbon monoxide is the difference between these amounts or, in this 
case, 141.39 tpd for Mecklenburg County for 2015, 71.92 tpd for Durham 
County for 2015, 101.88 tpd for Wake County for 2015, and 102.59 tpd 
for Forsyth County for 2015. The emissions are projected to maintain 
the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' air quality 
consistent with the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
    Maintenance plans and other control strategy SIPs create MVEBs for 
criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from 
cars and trucks. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable 
emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and 
emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's 
planned transportation system.
    The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the 
November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The 
preamble also describes how to establish and revise MVEBs in a SIP. In 
this SIP revision, the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas used MOBILE6.2 to establish MVEBs for carbon monoxide for the 
year 2015. The State of North Carolina has chosen to allocate the 
entire safety margin to the transportation section. These MVEBs are 
listed in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

                      Table 4.1.--Mecklenburg County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015 projected
                                                                   on-road                        2015 MVEB with
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin    safety margin
                                                                (tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          328.79           141.39           470.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                         Table 4.2.--Durham County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015 projected
                                                                   on-road                        2015 MVEB with
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin    safety margin
                                                                (tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          105.30            71.92           177.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 4.3.--Wake County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2015 projected
                                                                   on-road                        2015 MVEB with
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin    safety margin
                                                                (tons per day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          282.39           101.88           384.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 4.4.--Forsyth County 2015 MVEB With Safety Margin Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2015 on-road
                                                                  emissions      Safety margin      MVEB with
                                                                (tons per day)                    safety margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO...........................................................          145.05           102.59           247.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MVEBs presented in Table 4.5 are directly reflective of the 
combined onroad (or ``highway'') emissions for the Charlotte, Raleigh-
Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas for carbon monoxide, plus allocation 
from the available safety margin. After allocation of the safety margin 
to the MVEBs there is no available safety margin for future allocation. 
In summary, the new carbon monoxide MVEBs for the year 2015 are 470.18 
tpd for Mecklenburg County; 177.22 tpd for Durham County; 384.27 tpd 
for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for Forsyth County. The MVEBs for the 
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas that the

[[Page 14820]]

transportation partners must use are provided in the table below.

                      Table 4.5.--2015 MVEBs for CO
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mecklenburg County.............................................   470.18
Durham County..................................................   177.22
Wake County....................................................   384.27
Forsyth County.................................................   247.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Is EPA's Action on the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 
Winston-Salem Areas' Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan?

    EPA is approving North Carolina's SIP revision pertaining to the 
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' second 10-year 
maintenance plan, including the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide.

IV. What Is an Adequacy Determination and What Are EPA's Adequacy 
Determinations for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem 
Areas' New MVEBs for the Year 2015?

    Under Section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e. be 
consistent with) the part of the State's air quality plan that 
addresses pollution from cars and trucks. ``Conformity'' to the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 
the NAAQS. Under the transportation conformity rule, at 40 CFR part 93, 
projected emissions from transportation plans and programs must be 
equal to or less than MVEBs for the area. If a transportation plan does 
not ``conform,'' most new projects that would expand the capacity of 
roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA 
policy, criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring 
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP.
    Until MVEBs in a SIP submittal are approved by EPA, they cannot be 
used for transportation conformity purposes unless EPA makes an 
affirmative finding that the MVEBs contained therein are ``adequate.'' 
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes, those MVEBs can be used by the 
State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed 
transportation projects ``conform'' to the SIP even though the approval 
of the SIP revision containing those MVEBs has not yet been finalized. 
EPA's substantive criteria for determining ``adequacy'' of MVEBs in 
submitted SIPs are set out in EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule at 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is providing information on the status 
of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new MVEBs 
for the year 2015 that are contained in the second 10-year maintenance 
plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas. The 
adequacy comment period for the 2015 MVEBs began on March 29, 2005, 
with EPA's posting of availability of this submittal on EPA's Adequacy 
Web site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm). The adequacy comment 

period for these MVEBs closed on April 28, 2005. No comments on this 
submittal were received during EPA's adequacy comment period.
    In a letter dated April 29, 2005, to B. Keith Overcash, Director of 
the Division of Air Quality NCDENR, EPA informed the State of its 
intention to find the new 2015 MVEBs for carbon monoxide adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes. Subsequently, in a Final Federal 
Register notice dated May 6, 2005, (70 FR 24037) EPA found the 
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas' 2015 carbon 
monoxide MVEBs adequate. These MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria 
contained in the Transportation Conformity Rule. The 2015 MVEBs for the 
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Areas are currently being 
used for transportation conformity determinations. For regional 
emission analysis years that involve the year 2015 or beyond, the 
applicable budget for the purposes of conducting transportation 
conformity analysis will be the following 2015 MVEBs for carbon 
monoxide: 470.18 tpd for Mecklenburg County; 177.22 tpd for Durham 
County; 384.27 tpd for Wake County; and 247.64 tpd for Forsyth County.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a 
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or 
allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996,

[[Page 14821]]

generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 23, 2006. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Intergovernmental relations, 
Ozone.

    Dated: March 14, 2006.
A. Stanley Maiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52, is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770 (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of 
the table for ``Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Winston-Salem Carbon 
Monoxide Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Federal Register
          Provision               State effective date          EPA approval date               citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham,     March 18, 2005............  March 24, 2006............  [Insert first page of
 and Winston-Salem Carbon                                                               publication]
 Monoxide Second 10-Year
 Maintenance Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-2870 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
