[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7903-7910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02488]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0769; FRL-10576-01-R4]


Air Plan Approval; NC; Transportation Conformity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of 
Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Air Quality (DAQ) on September 
24, 2021. The SIP revisions replace previously approved memoranda of 
agreement (MOAs) with thirteen updated MOAs outlining transportation 
conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, 
conflict resolution, public participation, and enforceability of 
certain transportation-related control and mitigation measures. EPA is 
proposing to determine that North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP 
revisions are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0769 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

[[Page 7904]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and 
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is 
(404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. What is transportation conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the 
CAA and is a process that ensures federally-supported transportation 
activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the purposes of the 
SIP. Examples of transportation activities include federally-supported 
highway projects, transit projects, transportation plans, and 
transportation improvement projects (TIPs). Transportation conformity 
applies to areas that are designated nonattainment for transportation-
related national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (i.e., ozone, 
particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and PM10), carbon 
monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)) and to certain 
areas that have been redesignated to attainment of a transportation-
related NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In general, transportation conformity does not apply for 
areas that have completed the entirety of the required maintenance 
period (i.e., typically 20 years after redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 176(c), conformity means conformity to a 
SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of 
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such 
standards, and that no federal or federally-supported activity under 
section 176(c)(1) will: (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of 
any NAAQS in any area, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any 
existing violation of any standard in any area, or (3) delay timely 
attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions 
or other milestones in any area. The requirements of section 176(c) of 
the CAA apply to all departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of 
the federal government. Transportation conformity refers only to the 
conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects that are 
funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49 
U.S.C. chapter 53). Pursuant to section 176(c) of the CAA, EPA issues 
criteria and procedures for determining conformity of transportation 
plans, programs, and projects to a SIP. One of the requirements is that 
each state submit a revision to its SIP to include conformity criteria 
and procedures.

B. Why are states required to submit a transportation conformity SIP?

    EPA promulgated the first federal transportation conformity 
criteria and procedures (``Conformity Rule'') on November 24, 1993 (see 
58 FR 62188), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93. 
Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions 
of the conformity rule in their SIPs, frequently referred to as 
``conformity SIPs.'' Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the 
conformity rule were required to be copied verbatim into the SIP. Since 
then, the rule has been revised on August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098), 
November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780), April 
10, 2000 (65 FR 18911), August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), and January 24, 
2008 (73 FR 4438).
    On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed 
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the CAA transportation 
conformity provisions by streamlining the requirements for conformity 
SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only 
three sections of the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 
CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c). In general, states are no 
longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the 
other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on 
August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.
    A transportation conformity SIP can be adopted as a state rule, a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU), or a memorandum of agreement (MOA). 
The MOA/MOU must establish the roles and procedures for transportation 
conformity and include the detailed consultation procedures developed 
for that particular area. The MOAs are enforceable through the 
signature of all the transportation and air quality agencies, including 
EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) which consists of 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA). States may use an MOU or MOA as long as it meets 
the following requirements: ``(1) it is fully enforceable under state 
law against all parties involved in interagency consultation and in 
approving, adopting and implementing transportation projects, TIPs, or 
transportation plans, (2) the state submits it to EPA for inclusion 
into the SIP, and (3) it has been signed by all agencies covered by the 
conformity rule . . .'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Guidance for Developing Transportation Conformity 
State Implementation Plans (SIPs)'' U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-B-09-001 
(January 2009). Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1002W5B.PDF?Dockey=P1002W5B.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How does transportation conformity work?

    The transportation conformity rule applies to certain NAAQS 
nonattainment and maintenance areas in the state. The Metropolitan 
Planning Organization (MPO), the state department of transportation 
(DOT) (in absence of an MPO), state and local air quality agencies, 
EPA, and the USDOT are involved in the process of making conformity 
determinations. Conformity determinations are made on programs and 
plans such as a TIP, transportation plans, and transportation projects. 
The projected emissions that will result from implementation of the 
transportation plans and programs are calculated and compared to the 
motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP. The 
calculated emissions must be equal to or smaller than the federally 
approved MVEB for the USDOT to make a positive conformity determination 
with respect to the SIP.
    Pursuant to federal regulations, when an area is designated 
nonattainment for a transportation-related NAAQS, the state is required 
to submit a transportation conformity SIP within one year of the 
effective date of the nonattainment area designations. See 40 CFR 
51.390(c). Previously, North Carolina established, and EPA subsequently 
approved, a transportation conformity SIP to address areas that were 
designated nonattainment or previously designated nonattainment for the 
CO and 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 67 FR 32549 (December 27, 2002) for 
EPA's rulemaking approving North Carolina's transportation conformity 
SIP. North Carolina subsequently submitted a SIP revision on July 12, 
2013, to update and replace North Carolina's previously approved 
transportation conformity SIP. EPA approved this revision on December 
26, 2013. See 78 FR 78266.

D. The South Coast II Decision

    On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in South Coast Air 
Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA (``South Coast II,'' 882 F.3d 1138)

[[Page 7905]]

that affected the process for making transportation conformity 
decisions in areas that were either nonattainment or maintenance for 
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The case revolved around a challenge to EPA's 
final rule establishing implementation requirements for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS and revoking the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, known as the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). As a 
result of this rule, areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for 
the 1997 ozone NAAQS were no longer required to implement 
transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
In South Coast II, multiple environmental interest groups challenged 
EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule. The Court vacated 
portions of EPA's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule, but upheld 
EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    The Court decision referred to the 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment 
or maintenance areas that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS as ``orphan areas.'' The decision stated that transportation 
conformity still applies for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS in these 
orphan areas. For areas that were nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the court stated that transportation 
conformity applies as an anti-backsliding measure. See South Coast II, 
882 F.3d at 1149. For areas that were maintenance for the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the court stated that transportation 
conformity applies based on the court's interpretation of CAA section 
176(c)(5)(B). See id. at 1155.
    Based on the Agency's review of the court decision, EPA has 
concluded that the decision does not affect transportation conformity 
requirements for areas originally designated nonattainment for the more 
stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS (see 77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012), or areas 
designated nonattainment for the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS (see 
83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018). However, as a result of this court 
decision, the previous 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas are 
required to implement transportation conformity. These areas are as 
follows for North Carolina: (1) the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock 
Hill, NC-SC; (2) Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC; (3) Great 
Smoky National Park (North Carolina portion); (4) Hickory-Morganton-
Lenoir, NC; (5) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC; and (6) Rocky Mount, 
NC.

II. EPA Analysis of North Carolina's Submittals

    CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) and 40 CFR 51.390(b) require states to 
develop conformity SIPs that address three specific provisions of 
federal regulations. First, EPA's transportation conformity rule 
requires states to develop their own processes and procedures which 
meet the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency consultation and 
resolution of conflicts among the federal, state, and local agencies. 
The SIP revision must include processes and procedures to be followed 
by the MPO, state DOT, and the USDOT in consultation with the state and 
local air quality agencies and EPA before making conformity 
determinations. The conformity SIP revision must also include processes 
and procedures for the state and local air quality agencies and EPA to 
coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, 
and the USDOT. Second, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) states that conformity 
SIPs must require written commitments to control measures to be 
obtained prior to a conformity determination if those measures are not 
included in an MPO's transportation plan and TIP. This rule also 
requires that such commitments are fulfilled. Finally, 40 CFR 93.125(c) 
states that conformity SIPs must require that written commitments to 
mitigation measures must be obtained prior to a project-level 
conformity determination, and that the project sponsors comply with 
these commitments.
    On July 12, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through DAQ, 
submitted its ``Conformity SIP'' for the applicable transportation-
related NAAQS. Specifically, North Carolina requested EPA approval of 
its Conformity SIP which included MOAs signed by the federal and state 
transportation and air quality partners, and all of the MPOs in the 
state subject to transportation conformity requirements. EPA approved 
these MOAs into the North Carolina SIP on December 26, 2013. See 78 FR 
78266.
    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, conformity SIP revisions add 
new interagency partners and MPOs, establish new procedures for 
interagency consultation, dispute resolution, public participation and 
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and 
mitigation measures, and supersede the MOAs incorporated into the SIP 
on December 26, 2013. For a list of MPOs for which North Carolina has 
established MOAs in the September 24, 2021, submission, see Table 1, 
below. Table 1 also includes a list of the areas and/or counties which 
are covered under the updated MOAs.

              Table 1--MOA Administrators and Covered Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      MOA administrator                      Covered areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington-Graham MPO........  Alamance County and portions of Guilford
                                and Orange Counties.
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO...........  Cabarrus and Rowan Counties.
Charlotte Regional             Charlotte Urbanized Area which includes
 Transportation Planning        Charlotte and the remainder of
 Organization.                  Mecklenburg County plus that area beyond
                                the existing urbanized area boundary of
                                Iredell, Mecklenburg, and Union Counties
                                that is expected to become urban within
                                a twenty-year planning period.
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro    Durham County, the portion of Orange
 MPO.                           County that contains the towns of Chapel
                                Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and
                                Northeast Chatham County.
Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO.  Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln Counties.
Greater Hickory MPO..........  Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba
                                Counties.
Greensboro Urban Area MPO....  City of Greensboro, the majority of
                                unincorporated Guilford County, and the
                                towns of Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden,
                                Sedalia, Stokesdale, and Summerfield.
High Point Urban Area MPO....  Archdale, Denton, High Point, Jamestown,
                                Lexington, Thomasville, Trinity,
                                Wallburg, and portions of Davidson
                                County, Forsyth County and Randolph
                                County.
North Carolina Capital Area    Wake County and parts of Franklin,
 MPO.                           Granville, Harnett, and Johnston
                                Counties.
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO...  City of Rocky Mount, Towns of Nashville
                                and Sharpsburg, and portions of
                                Edgecombe and Nash Counties.
Winston-Salem-Forsyth Union    Portions of Forsyth, Davidson, Davie, and
 Area MPO.                      Stokes Counties.
Rural (counties not covered    Person County.
 by MPO, administered by
 North Carolina DOT).

[[Page 7906]]

 
Great Smoky Mountains          Portions of Haywood and Swain Counties.
 National Park (administered
 by NPS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2, below, identifies the applicable NAAQS for which each 
planning agency is required to implement transportation conformity, and 
therefore, establish interagency consultation procedures. As stated 
above, the MOAs are the documents which establish each area's 
interagency consultation procedures.

 Table 2--MOA Administrators and the Applicable NAAQS for Transportation
                               Conformity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      MOA administrator                     Applicable NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington-Graham MPO........  1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 annual PM2.5
                                NAAQS.
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO...........  1997 8-hour ozone, 2008 8-hour ozone, and
                                2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Charlotte Regional             1971 CO, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8-
 Transportation Planning        hour ozone NAAQS.
 Organization.
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro    1971 CO and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
 MPO.
Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO.  1997 8-hour ozone and 2008 8-hour ozone
                                NAAQS.
Greater Hickory MPO..........  1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Greensboro Urban Area MPO....  1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
High Point Urban Area MPO....  1971 CO and 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
North Carolina Capital Area    1971 CO and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
 MPO.
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO...  1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Winston-Salem-Forsyth Urban    1971 CO and 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
 Area MPO.
Rural (counties not covered    1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
 by MPO, administered by
 North Carolina DOT) \3\.
Great Smoky Mountains          1997-hour ozone NAAQS.
 National Park (administered
 by NPS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aside from some minor language edits and clarifications, each 
updated MOA makes changes to address federal transportation conformity 
requirements. Details on EPA's analysis of each updated MOA and its 
reasoning for proposing to approve them is presented in the sections 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Person County is the only county subject to transportation 
conformity requirements per the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that does 
not have an MPO responsible for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Bi-State Charlotte Area

    There are three MPOs within the North Carolina portion of the bi-
state Charlotte Area. These MPOs are:
     Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization (CRMPO);
     Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization 
(CRTPO); and
     Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (GCLMPO).
    Several counties (or portions of counties) in the bi-state 
Charlotte Area comprise the maintenance area for the CO NAAQS, as well 
as the maintenance areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Based on the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
Cabarrus, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and 
Union Counties in North Carolina, and a portion of York County in South 
Carolina,\4\ are required to implement transportation conformity 
requirements.\5\ DAQ worked with CRMPO, CRTPO, GLMPO, NC DOT, and the 
other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the bi-
state Charlotte Area to develop and execute updated MOAs to address the 
consultation and other applicable transportation conformity 
requirements for the Area. These MOAs are provided in the docket for 
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Separate to North Carolina, the state of South Carolina has 
established conformity procedures for York County, which makes up 
the South Carolina portion of the Charlotte bi-state Area, in its 
individual conformity SIP. EPA approved South Carolina's Conformity 
SIP on July 28, 2009. See 74 FR 37168.
    \5\ On December 16, 2015, EPA sent a letter to CRTPO informing 
it that its transportation conformity obligations in Mecklenburg 
County for the CO NAAQS ceased to apply after September 18, 2015, 
because the 20-year maintenance period had been reached and North 
Carolina did not extend the maintenance period beyond it. A copy of 
this letter is provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions, through the 
MOAs, update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity 
analysis results and reporting section, and the modifications of 
agreement section. The MOAs for MPOs in the bi-state Charlotte Area 
were primarily updated to make minor non-substantive changes such as 
minor language edits, renumbering changes throughout the MOAs, one 
change in a timing provision, and the removal of one section. 
Additionally, the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions include several 
other changes such as definition changes, and a few new clauses.
    The bulk of the changes in the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions 
concern minor language edits, clarifications, the correction of a 
typographical error, and the removal of an unnecessary section. For 
example, one language edit changes the word ``under'' to ``pursuant 
to.'' An example of clarifying edits made in the MOAs for the bi-state 
Charlotte Area was to update the names and abbreviations of the 
involved state and local agencies to their current names throughout the 
MOAs. Additionally, the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area included 
updates to the format for statutes and regulations, for example 
changing ``North Carolina Administrative Code (hereinafter, 
`N.C.A.C.'), Subchapter 2D'' to ``North Carolina Administrative Code 
(hereinafter, `NCAC'), Subchapter 2D.'' One other edit made in all the 
MOAs is to clarify the timing provision for the Interagency 
Consultation Conformity Determination Meeting, to be more explicit that 
the meeting must take place prior to a conformity determination being 
made. Previously, the description

[[Page 7907]]

of the meeting timing was unclear, so the edits require the meeting to 
take place at least nine months before a conformity determination is 
needed. The updates for the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area also 
fix a typographical error in clause 6.3.1.5 when referencing a specific 
regulation provision. Lastly, the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area 
remove the ``Termination of Agreement'' section. Further minor, non-
substantive changes include adding the term ``MOA'' to refer to the 
Memorandum of Agreement throughout the document, basic word preference 
changes, grammatical changes, and necessary renumbering of sections to 
incorporate the addition or removal of provisions, which are further 
discussed below.
    The MOAs also include several changes to the definitions sections 
of the MOAs, including the modification of two definitions and the 
addition of another. The MOAs all replaced the definition of ``Long 
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)'' with ``Metropolitan Transportation 
Plan (MTP).'' \6\ The definition for MTP in the new MOAs is, ``. . . 
the official multimodal transportation plan addressing no less than a 
20-year planning horizon that the MPO develops, adopts, and updates 
through the metropolitan transportation process.'' The definition for 
MTP is nearly identical to the definition for LRTP, with the one 
difference being the description as to how the plan is developed. The 
LRTP definition stated that it was developed through the ``statewide 
transportation planning process'' while the MTP definition states that 
``the MPO develops, adopts, and updates through the metropolitan 
transportation planning process.'' The MTP definition comes from 23 CFR 
part 450, titled ``Planning Assistance and Standards.'' 40 CFR part 93 
states that transportation conformity determinations are required for 
the adoption, acceptance, approval, or support of transportation plans, 
transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and their amendments, 
developed pursuant to 23 CFR part 50. See 40 CFR 93.102. Since 
transportation plans are developed pursuant to the requirements 
outlined in 23 CFR part 450, EPA preliminarily agrees with this change. 
North Carolina replaces all references to the LRTP with MTP throughout 
the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area. Additionally, the MOA updates 
modify the definition of ``Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
(STIP).'' \7 8\ The updated definition of STIP is identical to the 
definition in 23 CFR part 450. Finally, North Carolina also adds a 
definition for ``Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)'' in the MOAs 
for the bi-state Charlotte Area. Transportation conformity requires 
that federally-supported transportation activities, such as TIPs, are 
consistent with the purpose of the SIP. As transportation conformity 
includes TIPs, EPA preliminarily finds the addition of this definition 
to each MOA acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Long Range Transportation Plan was defined as ``. . . the 
official intermodal metropolitan transportation plan that is 
developed through the metropolitan planning process for the 
metropolitan planning area, developed pursuant to 23 CFR part 450.''
    \7\ The previous definition in the MOA defined STIP as, ``. . . 
a staged, multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of 
transportation projects, which consistent with the statewide 
transportation plan and planning processes.''
    \8\ The MOA has updated the definition of STIP to, ``. . . a 
statewide, prioritized listing/program of transportation projects 
that is consistent with the long-range statewide transportation 
plan, TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding 
pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina also added several new clauses in each MOA for the 
bi-state Charlotte Area. First, DAQ adds clause 2.1.6 in the ``MPO 
Duties'' sub-section, under the ``Duties of the Parties'' section, 
requiring that the:

    MPO, NCDOT, or its designee, shall conduct project-level 
conformity analysis for MPO-sponsored projects as part of the NEPA 
process for FHWA/FTA projects located in the MPO boundary. The MPO 
does not have to make project-level conformity determinations.

    40 CFR part 93.105 and 40 CFR part 93.122(a) require the MPOs 
conduct an analysis for all FHWA/FTA projects proposed in 
transportation plans, TIPs, or other regionally significant projects. 
This clause was added to meet this requirement. DAQ also adds a clause 
and sub-clauses to the ``Modifications of Agreement'' section. The 
clause and its corresponding sub-clauses allow NC DEQ to make 
administrative amendments as necessary to preserve the accuracy and 
integrity of the MOAs. The sub-clauses define what constitutes an 
administrative amendment. These modifications make this section more 
stringent by limiting acceptable amendments to the following: 
typographical errors, legal citations to accurately account for any 
reorganization of laws or regulations, and public information changes, 
such as the renaming of an organization. Further, EPA preliminarily 
finds these modifications acceptable as any amendments will still have 
to go through the SIP process to modify the transportation conformity 
SIP.
    DAQ has also modified several clauses in each MOA. A clause DAQ 
modifies in each MOA is 2.1.13 in the ``MPO Duties'' sub-section under 
the ``Duties of the Parties'' section. This clause now requires that 
the applicable MPO or MPO designee submit a request to NC DEQ or its 
designee for written emissions modeling results required for conformity 
determinations instead of for emission factors. Further, the change 
also requires the MPO, or its designee, to provide vehicle speed, 
vehicle miles travelled, and other input data necessary to generate 
emissions modeling results. Emissions modeling is a more comprehensive 
way to characterize emissions resulting from transportation conformity 
projects than simply using emissions factors because it accounts for 
more variables, such as meteorology. 40 CFR 93.105(c) requires that the 
agencies subject to an MOA evaluate and choose a model for regional 
emissions analyses, and 40 CFR 93.122 outlines how these models should 
be designed. Other provisions referring to emissions factors previously 
in the MOAs are revised to refer to emissions modeling results instead. 
For example, subsection 7.1.2 in each MOA specifies that the conformity 
analysis reports must include the mobile model inputs and outputs used 
to develop the emissions modeling results. One last clause that is 
modified in each MOA is 2.2.11, which is in the ``NCDEQ Duties'' sub-
section, also under the ``Duties of the Parties'' section. This clause 
requires NC DEQ to consult and review project narratives to determine 
if a conformity project is an air quality concern pursuant to 40 CFR 
part 93. Previously, it only required a review of project narratives to 
determine if the conformity project had any particulate matter air 
quality concerns. The modification to the clause makes it more 
stringent because it is now not limited to particulate matter air 
quality concerns.
    EPA has reviewed the procedures and updates provided in the MOAs 
and has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with the CAA 
and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 
51.390 and 40 CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 
inclusion of the updated MOAs for the CRMPO, CRTPO, and GLMPO, relating 
to the bi-state Charlotte Area into the North Carolina SIP.

B. Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area

    Portions of Haywood and Swain Counties comprise the Great Smoky 
National Park maintenance area for the

[[Page 7908]]

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As indicated above, the Great Smoky Mountain 
National Park Area is required to implement transportation conformity 
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a maintenance area. As 
such, DAQ worked with the National Park Service, NC DOT, and the other 
applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Great Smoky 
Mountain National Park Area to develop and execute an updated MOA to 
address the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity 
requirements for the area. This MOA is provided in the docket for this 
proposed rulemaking.
    The bulk of the changes in the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions 
concern minor language edits, clarifications, and a correction of a 
typographical error. For example, one language edit changes the word 
``under'' to ``pursuant to.'' An example of clarifying edits to the 
Great Smoky Mountains MOA was to update the names and abbreviations of 
the involved state and local agencies to their current names throughout 
the MOA. Additionally, the format for statues and regulations in the 
MOA have been revised, for example changing ``49 U.S.C., 40 CFR 
93.101'' to ``49 U.S.C., 40 CFR 93.101'' and changing, ``40 CFR 93.126, 
.127, and .128'' to ``40 CFR 93.126, 93.127, and 93.128.'' The MOA was 
also updated to fix a typographical error in clause 3.2.2.5 when 
referencing a specific regulation provision. Further minor, non-
substantive changes throughout the document include basic word 
preference changes, grammatical changes, and the necessary renumbering 
of sections to incorporate the addition of a clause.
    The updates to the MOA also include several other changes, 
including the modification of two definitions, the addition of one 
clause, and the modification of one section. First, the MOA updates 
modify the definition of ``Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
(STIP).'' 9 10 The updated definition of STIP is identical 
to the definition in 23 CFR part 450. The definition of 
``Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)'' has also been modified in 
the MOA.11 12 This definition is similar to the one for TIP 
found in 23 CFR part 450. As explained in the previous section, since 
transportation plans are developed pursuant to the requirements 
outlined in 23 CFR part 450, EPA finds these changes acceptable. The 
updates also include adding clause 4.1.2 to the ``Conformity Analysis 
Results and Reporting'' Section, which states that the conformity 
analysis should include, ``Mobile model inputs and outputs needed to 
develop road network emissions modeling results . . .'' As all the 
parties involved are required to evaluate and choose models and the 
associated assumptions for these models pursuant to 40 CFR 
93.105(c)(1)(i), EPA preliminarily finds the addition of this clause 
requiring the conformity analysis report to include the mobile model 
inputs and outputs acceptable and helpful. Finally, the ``Modifications 
and Renewal of Agreement'' section has been heavily modified in the 
MOA. The modifications to this section of the Greater Smoky Mountain 
Area MOA are identical to the changes made in the ``Modifications of 
Agreement'' section for the bi-state Charlotte MPOs. EPA finds these 
changes acceptable for the same reasons described in Section II.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The previous definition in the MOA defined STIP as, ``. . . 
a staged, multi-year, statewide, intermodal program of 
transportation projects, which consistent with the statewide 
transportation plan and planning processes.''
    \10\ The MOA has updated the definition of STIP to, ``. . . a 
statewide, prioritized listing/program of transportation projects 
that is consistent with the long-range statewide transportation 
plan, TIPs, and required for projects to be eligible for funding 
pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.''
    \11\ The previous definition in the MOA defined TIP as a 
``Transportation Improvement Program developed by FHWA-EFLHD in 
coordination with NPS.''
    \12\ The MOA has updated the definition of TIP to, ``. . . a 
prioritized listing/program of transportation projects that are 
developed by FHWA-EFLHD in coordination with the NPS and required 
for projects to be eligible for funding pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C. 
and 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the procedures and updates provided in the MOA and 
has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the 
applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 
CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of 
the updated MOA for the Great Smoky Mountain Area into the North 
Carolina SIP.

C. Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area

    There are four MPOs within the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point 
Area. These MPOs are:
     Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization 
(BGMPO);
     Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 
(GMPO);
     High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 
(HPMPO); and
     Winston-Salem-Forsyth Urban Area Metropolitan Planning 
Organization (WSFUA).
    Several counties (or portions of counties) in the Greensboro-
Winston Salem-High Point Area comprise the maintenance area for the CO 
NAAQS, the previous maintenance area for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\13\ The Burlington-Graham MPO 
is comprised of Alamance County and portions of Guilford and Orange 
Counties for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. The Greensboro Urban MPO is 
comprised of the City of Greensboro, the majority of unincorporated 
Guilford County, and the towns of Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, 
Stokesdale, and Summerfield for the annual 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
maintenance areas. The High Point Urban MPO is comprised of Archdale, 
Denton, High Point, Jamestown, Lexington, Thomasville, Trinity, and 
Wallburg Counties, as well as portions of Davidson, Forsyth and 
Randolph Counties for the CO and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 
maintenance areas. Lastly, the Winston-Salem Urban MPO is comprised of 
portions of Forsyth, Davidson, Davie and Stokes Counties for the CO 
NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. Although no 
longer required, DAQ worked with the BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, WSFUA, NC DOT, 
and the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for 
the Area to develop and execute updated MOAs to address the 
consultation and other applicable transportation conformity 
requirements such as 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for 
the Area.\14\ These MOAs are provided in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area was an Early 
Action Compact (EAC) area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This area 
was designated nonattainment on June 15, 2004, for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS, with a deferred effective date. The Area met all of the 
EAC milestones and was ultimately never effectively designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was 
therefore never required to implement transportation conformity 
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but was required to 
continue to implement transportation conformity requirements for the 
1-hour ozone NAAQS until this requirement was removed as a result of 
the area successfully meeting the EAC milestones for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.
    \14\ Transportation conformity requirements are no longer 
applicable to the Davidson and Guilford Counties 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions for the MOAs 
associated with the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area, make the 
same changes to these MOAs as the bi-state Charlotte MOAs. As such, 
North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions update the MOA 
definitions, party

[[Page 7909]]

duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and 
the ``Modifications of Agreement'' section. Since the updates to the 
MOAs in the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area are the same as 
those to the MOAs for the bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA has 
preliminarily determined that these modifications are consistent with 
the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 
CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons described in Section 
II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the 
updated MOAs for the BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, and WSFUA, relating to the 
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area, into the North Carolina SIP.

D. Hickory Area

    The Hickory Area consists of one MPO, the Greater Hickory MPO, 
which is comprised of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties. 
The Hickory Area is a maintenance area for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS. As indicated above, the Hickory Area was previously required to 
implement transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS as a maintenance area. Although no longer 
required, DAQ worked with the Greater Hickory MPO, and other applicable 
transportation and air quality partners for the Hickory Area to develop 
and execute an updated MOA to address the consultation and other 
applicable transportation conformity requirements such as 40 CFR 
93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for the Area. This MOA is 
provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions make the same 
changes to the Greater Hickory MOA as those made to the MOAs for the 
bi-State Charlotte Area. As such, these changes update the MOA 
definitions, party duties section, conformity analysis results and 
reporting section, and the Modifications of Agreement section. Since 
the updates to the Greater Hickory MOA are the same as those made to 
the MOAs for the bi-State Charlotte Area, EPA has preliminarily 
determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the applicable 
transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 
93 for the reasons described in Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to approve the inclusion of the updated MOA for the Greater 
Hickory MPO, relating to the Hickory Area, into the North Carolina SIP.

E. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area

    There are two MPOs within the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill Area. 
These MPOs are:
     Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO; and
     North Carolina Capital Area MPO.
    Several counties (or portions of counties) in the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Area comprise a maintenance area for the CO NAAQS and a 
maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Durham-Chapel 
Hill-Carrboro MPO consists of Durham County; the portion of Orange 
County that contains the towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and 
Hillsborough; and Northeast Chatham County. The North Carolina Capital 
Area MPO consists of Franklin, Granville, Harnett, Johnston, and Wake 
Counties. Durham, Franklin, Granville, Orange, Johnston, Person,\15\ 
and Wake Counties, in their entireties, and a portion of Chatham County 
in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area were included in the maintenance 
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus, are required to 
implement transportation conformity requirements.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NC DOT administers transportation conformity requirements 
for Person County in accordance with the MOA for rural areas. See 
Section II.G, below.
    \16\ The end of the second maintenance plan has been reached for 
CO for Durham and Wake Counties, so transportation conformity is no 
longer required in relation to the CO NAAQS for the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DAQ worked with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, the North 
Carolina Capital Area MPO, NC DOT, and the other applicable 
transportation and air quality partners for the Area to develop and 
execute updated MOAs to address the consultation and other applicable 
transportation conformity SIP requirements such as 40 CFR 
93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for the Area. These MOAs are 
provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions make the same 
changes to the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area MOAs as the bi-State 
Charlotte MOAs. As such, North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP 
revisions update the MOA definitions, party duties section, conformity 
analysis results and reporting section, and the Modifications of 
Agreement section. Since the updates to the MOAs in the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Area are the same as those to the MOAs in the bi-State 
Charlotte Area, EPA has preliminarily determined that these are 
consistent with the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity 
requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons 
described in Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 
inclusion of the updated MOAs for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Cabarrus MPO 
and North Carolina Capital Area MPO, relating to the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Area, into the North Carolina SIP.

F. Rocky Mount Area

    There is one MPO in the Rocky Mount Area, the Rocky Mount Urban 
Area MPO, which is comprised of the City of Rocky Mount, the towns of 
Nashville and Sharpsburg, and portions of Edgecombe and Nash Counties. 
Edgecombe and Nash Counties are in maintenance for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. DAQ worked with the Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO and other 
applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Rocky Mount 
Area to develop and execute an updated MOA to address the consultation 
and other applicable transportation conformity SIP requirements for the 
Area. This MOA is provided in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions make the same 
changes to the Rocky Mount Area MOA as those made to the MOAs for the 
bi-state Charlotte Area with the exception of the definition for 
TIP.\17\ As such, these changes update the MOA definitions, party 
duties section, conformity analysis results and reporting section, and 
the Modifications of Agreement section. Since the updates to the Rocky 
Mount MOA are the same as those to the MOAs in the bi-state Charlotte 
Area,\18\ EPA has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with 
the CAA and the applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 
CFR 51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the reasons described in Section 
II.A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the 
updated MOA for the Rocky Mount Area into the North Carolina SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Rocky Mount Area MOA uses a slightly different 
definition for TIP than the bi-state Charlotte Area MOAs. It defines 
it as, ``. . . a staged, multi-year, intermodal program of 
transportation projects covering a metropolitan planning area which 
is consistent with the MTP and was developed pursuant to 23 CFR, 
Part 450.'' Outside of this difference, the rest of the revisions 
are the same as the MOAs for the MPOs in the bi-State Charlotte 
Area. As transportation conformity requires that federally-supported 
transportation activities, such as TIPs, are consistent with the 
purposes of the SIP pursuant to 23 CFR, Part 450, this definition is 
acceptable.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Rural Area

    NC DOT is the responsible party for interagency consultation and 
compliance with transportation conformity requirements if no MPO exists 
in an area that is subject to 40 CFR part 93. Currently, Person County 
is subject to transportation conformity per the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
and does not have an MPO responsible for it. Therefore, NC DOT 
administers

[[Page 7910]]

transportation conformity requirements for this area in accordance with 
the MOA for rural areas. DAQ worked with NC DOT and other applicable 
transportation and air quality partners for the area to develop and 
execute an updated MOA to address the consultation and other applicable 
transportation conformity SIP requirements such as 40 CFR 
93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c). This MOA is provided in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    North Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions for the Rural 
Area MOA make many of the same changes as the bi-State Charlotte MOAs 
and the Great Smoky Mountain Area MOA. With respect to ``Duties of the 
Parties'' section, the Interagency Consultation Conformity 
Determination Meeting timing clarification, a typographical error in 
clause 6.3.1.5, the removal of the ``Termination of Agreement'' 
section, and the Modifications of Agreement section, the Rural Area MOA 
makes the same changes as those made in the bi-state Charlotte MOAs. 
With respect to the definitions for ``Transportation Improvement 
Program (TIP)'' and ``Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 
(STIP)'', the Rural Area MOA makes the same changes as the Great Smoky 
Mountain National Park Area MOA. EPA finds these changes acceptable of 
the same reasons outlined in Sections II.A and II.B. Further minor, 
non-substantive changes throughout the document include basic word 
preference changes, grammatical changes, and the necessary renumbering 
of sections to incorporate the addition of a clause.
    EPA has reviewed the procedures and updates provided in the MOA and 
has preliminarily determined that it is consistent with the CAA and the 
applicable transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 
40 CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of 
the updated MOA for the Rural Area into the North Carolina SIP.

III. Proposed Actions

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve North 
Carolina's September 24, 2021, SIP revisions. Specifically, EPA is 
proposing to approve the replacement of Transportation Conformity MOAs 
for the Burlington-Graham MPO, Cabarrus-Rowan MPO, Charlotte Regional 
Transportation Planning Organization, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, 
Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO, Greater Hickory MPO, Greensboro Urban 
Area MPO, High Point Urban Area MPO, North Carolina Capital Area MPO, 
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park 
(NPS), and Rural Area (NC DOT). EPA is proposing to find that these 
actions are consistent with section 110 and 176 of the CAA and will not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the 
CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely 
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not 
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For 
that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having significant economic impacts 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP revisions are not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rules do not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 
will they impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 31, 2023.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-02488 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


