

[Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 117)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 33692-33694]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jn07-21]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0002-200538c; FRL-8328-6]

 
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; Clarification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is clarifying its approval of revisions to the North 
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), published in the Federal 
Register on March 24, 2006. Specifically, EPA is clarifying that its 
March 24, 2006, approval of the North Carolina carbon monoxide (CO) 
second 10-year maintenance plan for the Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and 
Winston-Salem areas included final approval of the movement of the 
oxygenated fuel program from the North Carolina Raleigh-Durham CO 
maintenance plan to the contingency plan.

DATES: This action is effective June 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-NC-0002. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
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 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: Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404) 
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at 
Lakeman.sean@epa.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. EPA's Action

    In September 1995, EPA redesignated Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina 
to attainment for the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (CO NAAQS) and approved the initial 10-year maintenance plan 
for the area (60 FR 39258). The initial 10-year maintenance plan 
included the use of a 2.0% oxygenated fuel program. Subsequently, on 
October 19, 1995, North Carolina submitted a proposed SIP revision 
requesting that the oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham CO 
maintenance area be moved from the maintenance plan to the contingency 
measures portion of the plan. The request was based on a revised 
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis which demonstrated that the

[[Page 33693]]

CO NAAQS could be maintained without the continued use of the 
oxygenated fuel program. EPA analyzed this request and proposed to 
approve the revision in 1995 (60 FR 56127, November 7, 1995). EPA 
received no comments on its proposed action.
    As required by section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), North 
Carolina submitted another SIP revision in March 2005 providing for the 
second 10-year maintenance plan for CO for the Raleigh-Durham area, as 
well as for the Charlotte and Winston-Salem CO maintenance areas. The 
second 10-year maintenance plan included a new carbon monoxide emission 
inventory for 2000 and also established new motor vehicle emission 
budgets (MVEBs) for CO for 2015. The plan also provided for the 
oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham CO area as a contingency 
measure rather than as a maintenance plan component. On March 24, 2006, 
(71 FR 14817) EPA approved, through a direct final rulemaking, the 
second 10-year CO maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, 
and Winston-Salem CO maintenance areas. EPA received no comments on the 
March 2006 direct final rulemaking and it became effective in May 2006.
    The March 2006 direct final rulemaking, however, did not explicitly 
reference any final action by EPA on the movement of the oxygenated 
fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham area from the maintenance plan to 
the contingency measures portion of the plan. While not explicitly 
referenced, it was EPA's intent to take such final action in the March 
2006 rulemaking. Therefore, today, EPA is clarifying that in its March 
2006 approval of the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-
Durham CO maintenance area, EPA intended to finalize its 1995 proposed 
approval of the movement of the oxygenated fuel program for the 
Raleigh-Durham area from the maintenance plan to the contingency 
measures portion of the plan.
    EPA has determined that today's action falls under the ``good 
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes 
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and 
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are 
unnecessary because today's clarification of EPA's March 24, 2006, rule 
approving the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham CO 
maintenance area has no substantive impact on that approval and the 
clarification makes no substantive difference to EPA's analysis as set 
out in that rule. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason 
why the public would be interested in being notified of this 
clarification since the opportunity to comment on the action to move 
the oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham area from the 
maintenance plan to the contingency measures portion of the plan was 
previously provided and no comments were received.
    EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) 
for this clarification to become effective on the date of publication 
of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA 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.'' (5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3)). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA 
section 553(d)(3), is to give affected parties a reasonable time to 
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. 
Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements 
such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule 
takes effect. Rather, today's rule simply clarifies that in EPA's March 
2006 approval of the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-
Durham CO maintenance area, EPA intended to finalize its 1995 proposed 
approval of the movement of the oxygenated fuel program for the 
Raleigh-Durham area from the maintenance plan to the contingency 
measures portion of the plan. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause 
under APA section 553(d)(3), for this clarification to become effective 
on the date of publication of this action.

II. 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 provides clarification that in EPA's March 24, 2006, approval of 
the second 10-year maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham CO 
maintenance area, EPA intended to finalize its 1995 proposed approval 
of the movement of the oxygenated fuel program for the Raleigh-Durham 
area from the maintenance plan to the contingency measures portion of 
the plan. This clarification has no substantive impact on EPA's March 
24, 2006, approval and it imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this action 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 clarification 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 clarification 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 clarifies an approved state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This action 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 action does not impose an 
information collection burden under the

[[Page 33694]]

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 August 20, 2007. 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, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Ozone.

    Dated: June 7, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
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. In Sec.  52.1770 (c), table 1 is amended under subchapter 2D by 
revising the entries for ``Sect .1301'', ``Sect .1302'' and ``Sect 
.1304'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                Table 1.--EPA Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .1301.......................  Purpose.............     09/01/96  06/19/07 [Insert
                                                                       first page of
                                                                       publication].
Sect .1302.......................  Applicability.......     09/01/96  06/19/07 [Insert
                                                                       first page of
                                                                       publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .1304.......................  Oxygen Content           09/01/96  06/19/07 [Insert
                                    Standard.                          first page of
                                                                       publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-11776 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
