[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33692-33694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11776]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 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
[email protected].
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