[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72948-72953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24959]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0601-200747; FRL-8510-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina;
Redesignation of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
June 7, 2007, from the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), to
redesignate the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (``NAAQS'', or ``standard''). The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
8-hour ozone area is comprised of Durham, Franklin, Granville,
Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties in their entireties, and
Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County in
North Carolina (hereafter referred to as the ``Triangle Area''). EPA's
approval of the redesignation request is based on the determination
that North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle Area has met the
criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act
(CAA), including the determination that the Triangle Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) including the 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for the Triangle Area that contains the new
subarea 2008 and 2017 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and an insignificance determination
for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribution from motor vehicle
emissions to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the entire Triangle Area.
Through this action, EPA is also finding the new subarea 2008 and 2017
NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance determination,
adequate for the purposes of transportation conformity. The above
described actions were proposed for public comment on October 3, 2007;
no comments were received. EPA is also making corrections to
inadvertent errors made in the proposed rulemaking published on October
3, 2007, (72 FR 56312) to Tables 1, 6, and 7.
DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective December 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0601. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta Ward, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Nacosta Ward can be
reached via telephone at (404) 562-9140 or electronic mail at
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Is the Background for the Actions?
II. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
V. Final Action
VI. When Is This Action Effective?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is the Background for the Actions?
On June 7, 2007, North Carolina, through NCDENR, submitted a
request to redesignate the Triangle Area to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard, and for EPA approval of the North Carolina SIP revision
containing a maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. In an action
published on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312), EPA proposed to approve the
redesignation of the Triangle Area to attainment. EPA also proposed
approval of North Carolina's SIP revision including a plan for
maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS as a SIP revision, and proposed to approve
the new subarea \1\ 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC
insignificance determination for the Triangle Area that were contained
in the maintenance plan. In the October 3, 2007, proposed action, EPA
also provided information on the status of its transportation
conformity adequacy determination for the Triangle Area subarea
NOX MVEBs and VOC insignificance determination. EPA received
no comments on the
[[Page 72949]]
October 3, 2007, proposal. This rule is EPA's final action following
the October 3, 2007, proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``subarea'' refers to the portion of the area, in a
nonattainment or maintenance area, for which the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) apply. In this case, the ``subareas'' are
established at the county level so this indicates that the MVEBs
cover individual counties and also indicates to transportation
conformity implementers in this area that there are separate county-
level MVEBs for each county in this area. EPA's Companion Guidance
for the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule:
Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality Standards
explains more about the possible geographical extent of a MVEB, how
these geographical areas are defined, and how transportation
conformity is implemented in these different geographical areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, EPA is also announcing its finding that the new
subarea NOX MVEBs for the Triangle Area and the VOC
insignificance determination are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. The new subarea NOX MVEBs included in the
maintenance plan are as follows:
Triangle Subarea NO\X\ MVEBs
[kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................... 1,565 948
Durham................................................ 13,106 4,960
Franklin.............................................. 2,048 1,139
Granville............................................. 4,649 1,714
Johnston.............................................. 12,583 5,958
Orange................................................ 9,933 3,742
Person................................................ 1,359 791
Wake.................................................. 36,615 16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's adequacy public comment period on the subarea NOX
MVEBs and the VOC insignificance determination began on March 21, 2007,
and closed on April 20, 2007. No comments were received during EPA's
adequacy public comment period. Through this Federal Register document,
EPA is finding the new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, as
contained in North Carolina's submittal, adequate. These subarea
NOX MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria contained in the
transportation conformity rule. The new subarea NOX MVEBs
must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. EPA
is also finding adequate North Carolina's demonstration that the VOC
emissions from motor vehicles are insignificant, and therefore no MVEBs
are necessary for VOC. As a result of this finding (and approval which
is discussed later in this rulemaking), the transportation partners are
not required to complete a regional emissions analysis for VOC as a
precursor for the 8-hour ozone standard for transportation conformity,
but all of the other transportation conformity requirements must be
met.
As was discussed in greater detail in the October 3, 2007,
proposal, this redesignation is for the Triangle Area's 8-hour ozone
designation finalized in 2004 (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2007). Various
aspects of EPA's Phase 1 8-hour ozone implementation rule were
challenged in court and on December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's
Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR
23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
(SCAQMD) v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC.Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in
response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit Court
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently
classified under subpart 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour
nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates and the timing for
emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
remain effective. The June 8th decision left intact the Court's
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8th decision
affirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed
to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be
implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on
the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to
conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were
available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already
required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for anti-
backsliding purposes.
With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that
for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their 1-hour maintenance plans,
anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets.
To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
continue to comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity
regulations at 40 CFR Part 93. A portion of the Triangle Area was
previously designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and
thus has 1-hour MVEBs which are currently being used in that area to
demonstrate transportation conformity.
For the above reasons, and those set forth in the October 3, 2007,
proposal for the redesignation of the Triangle Area, EPA does not
believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to
this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of the Triangle Area to
attainment. Even in light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is
appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and
longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests.
II. What Actions is EPA Taking?
EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's
redesignation request and to change the legal designation of the
Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is also approving North Carolina's 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Triangle Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria
for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is
designed to help keep the Triangle Area in attainment for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2017. These approval actions are based on EPA's
determination that North Carolina has demonstrated that the Triangle
Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in
the CAA, including a demonstration that the Triangle Area has attained
the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's analyses of North Carolina's 8-hour
ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan are described in
detail in the proposed rule published October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56312).
Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes new subarea 2008 and 2017 MVEBs for NOX; and a
VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. In this action,
EPA is approving these new subarea 2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs,
and the VOC insignificance determination for the Triangle Area. For
regional emission analysis years that involve years prior to 2017, the
applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting transportation
conformity analyses) are the new subarea 2008 NOX MVEBs. For
regional emission analysis years that involve the year 2017 and beyond,
the applicable
[[Page 72950]]
budgets, for the purpose of conducting transportation conformity
analyses, are the new subarea 2017 NOX MVEBs. In this
action, EPA is also finding adequate and approving the Triangle Area's
new subarea MVEBs for NOX. Further, EPA is finding adequate
and approving the VOC insignificance determination for motor vehicles'
contribution to the 8-hour ozone pollution for the Triangle Area.
EPA is also making corrections to inadvertent errors made to Table
1. ``TRIANGLE SUBAREA NOX MVEBS,'' Table 6. ``TRIANGLE
SUBAREA NOX MVEBs,'' and Table 7. ``NOX SAFETY
MARGIN ALLOCATION'' in the proposed rulemaking published on October 3,
2007 (72 FR 56312). The error was the misspelling of Granville County
as ``Graham County.'' See the corrected tables below:
Table 1.--Triangle Subarea NOX MVEBs
[kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................... 1,565 948
Durham................................................ 13,106 4,960
Franklin.............................................. 2,048 1,139
Granville............................................. 4,649 1,714
Johnston.............................................. 12,583 5,958
Orange................................................ 9,933 3,742
Person................................................ 1,359 791
Wake.................................................. 36,615 16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--Triangle Subarea NOX MVEBs*
[kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................... 1,565 948
Durham................................................ 13,106 4,960
Franklin.............................................. 2,048 1,139
Granville............................................. 4,649 1,714
Johnston.............................................. 12,583 5,958
Orange................................................ 9,933 3,742
Person................................................ 1,359 791
Wake.................................................. 36,615 16,352
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes an allocation from the available NOX safety margins (see
Table 7).
Table 7.--NOX Safety Margin Allocation
[kilograms per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham............................................... 204 190
Durham................................................ 1,191 827
Franklin.............................................. 186 190
Granville............................................. 606 343
Johnston.............................................. 1,144 993
Orange................................................ 903 624
Person................................................ 177 158
Wake.................................................. 3,329 2,725
-----------------
Total............................................. 7,741 6,049
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Why Is EPA Taking These Actions?
EPA has determined that the Triangle Area has attained the 8-hour
ozone standard and has also determined that North Carolina has
demonstrated that all other criteria for the redesignation of the
Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS have been met. See, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is also
taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Triangle
Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d) of the
CAA. Furthermore, EPA is finding adequate and approving the new subarea
2008 and 2017 NOX MVEBs, and the VOC insignificance
determination contained in North Carolina's maintenance plan because
these MVEBs and the insignificance determination are consistent with
maintenance for the Triangle Area. In the October 3, 2007, proposal to
redesignate the Triangle Area, EPA described the applicable criteria
for redesignation to attainment and its analysis of how those criteria
have been met. The rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set
forth in the proposed rulemaking and summarized in this rulemaking.
IV. What Are the Effects of These Actions?
Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of the Triangle Area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR Part
81. The approval also incorporates into the North Carolina SIP a plan
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Triangle Area through
2017. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and a VOC insignificance
determination under 40 CFR 93.109(k) for regional motor vehicle
emissions contribution to the 8-hour ozone pollution in the Triangle
Area. Additionally, the maintenance plan establishes new subarea
NOX MVEBs for the years 2008 and 2017 for each county in the
Triangle Area. These subarea budgets are established for each
metropolitan planning organization (MPO), and in some instances,
counties that are ``donut areas.'' The conformity rule defines a donut
area as the portion of a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area
that is located outside an MPO's planning boundary (40 CFR 93.101).
Donut areas are not considered isolated rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas under the transportation conformity rule.
Sections 93.124(c) and (d) of the transportation conformity rule
provide the regulatory mechanism for establishing and implementing
subarea SIP budgets. In July 2004, EPA released a guidance document
that provided additional details for implementing conformity in multi-
jurisdictional areas, including establishing subarea SIP budgets in
areas with multiple MPOs, entitled ``Companion Guidance for the July 1,
2004 Final Transportation Conformity Rule Conformity Implementation in
Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing
and New Air Quality Standards,'' EPA 420-B-04-012. While that guidance
did not address the case where subarea budgets are established for a
donut area, such budgets can be established in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the CAA that ensures that conformity determinations
in the Triangle Area will continue to meet federal conformity
requirements.
EPA believes that statutory and regulatory requirements can be met
for the entire nonattainment or maintenance area if conformity is
determined for every subarea SIP budget at least every four years. Only
by meeting all subarea SIP budgets can the SIP's overall purpose be
met. As described on page 21 of the 2004 guidance, CAA section 176(c)
states that the federal government and MPOs cannot approve
transportation activities unless they conform to the SIP and its
budgets. In a nonattainment or maintenance area with more than one MPO,
all MPOs must conform even if the SIP has established subarea budgets.
EPA believes that this same legal standard applies in the case where
the SIP establishes a subarea budget for a donut area.
In the case of the Triangle Area 8-hour ozone SIP, subarea budgets
have been established for the Area's MPOs and donut areas. Conformity
determinations must be completed for all subarea budgets according to
the statutory requirement to determine conformity at least every four
years in areas with MPOs, transportation plans, and Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs). MPOs must determine conformity to their
respective transportation plans and TIPs every four years, and the
interagency consultation process for the Triangle Area should ensure
that conformity is demonstrated to any subarea budget for a donut area
at least every four years as well. In the
[[Page 72951]]
event that an MPO or donut area cannot demonstrate conformity on a
four-year cycle, the other subareas cannot complete a conformity
determination until all subareas conform. See, EPA's 2004 guidance
(pages 20-21) for further information regarding the conformity
implications of not meeting subarea budgets.
V. Final Action
After evaluating North Carolina's redesignation request, EPA is
taking final action to approve the redesignation and change the legal
designation of the Triangle Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving into
the North Carolina SIP the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the
Triangle Area, which includes the subarea 2008 and 2017 MVEBs for
NOX, and VOC insignificance determination for the entire
Triangle Area. Within 24 months from the publication date for this
final rule, the North Carolina transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to these new subarea NOX MVEBs
pursuant 172(c)(2)(E) of the CAA as added by the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005.
Additionally, the Triangle Area transportation partners should note
EPA's finding of adequacy and approval for the VOC insignificance
determination in future transportation conformity determinations.
VI. When Is This Action Effective?
EPA finds that there is good cause for these determinations
(approval of redesignation and 10-year maintenance plan, including the
2017 MVEBs) to become effective on December 26, 2007, because a delayed
effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of these
determinations, which relieves the Triangle Area from certain CAA
requirements that otherwise would apply to it. The expedited effective
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction'' and section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule.''
A redesignation to attainment relieves the Triangle Area from
certain CAA requirements that otherwise would apply to it. North
Carolina's relief from these obligations is sufficient reason to allow
an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and
provides good cause to make this rule effective December 26, 2007,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting
period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final
rule takes effect. Whereas here, the final rule relieves obligations
associated with nonattainment designations rather than imposing these
obligations on affected parties, such as the State of North Carolina.
Therefore, there is no need for time to adjust and prepare before the
rule takes effect.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely affects the status of a
geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources or
allow a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe that the rule concerns an environmental health risk
or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 25, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition
[[Page 72952]]
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See, section
307(b)(2) of the CAA).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 13, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart II--North Carolina
0
2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill, North Carolina area'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register
Provision State effective date EPA approval date citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for the June 7, 2007........... December 26, 2007...... [Insert first page
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, North of publication]
Carolina area (Durham, Franklin,
Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and
Wake Counties in their entireties, and
Baldwin, Center, New Hope and Williams
Townships in Chatham County).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina-Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended under ``Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC'' by
revising the entries for ``Chatham County (part) Baldwin Township,
Center Township, New Hope Township, Williams Township,'' ``Durham
County,'' ``Franklin County,'' ``Granville County,'' ``Johnston
County,'' ``Orange County,'' ``Person County,'' and ``Wake County'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.334 North Carolina.
* * * * *
North Carolina--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Category/classification
Designated area -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC:
Chatham County (part) Baldwin This action is Attainment....
Township, Center Township, New Hope effective December
Township, Williams Township. 26, 2007.
Durham County....................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
Franklin County..................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
Granville County.................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
Johnston County..................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
Orange County....................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
Person County....................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
Wake County......................... This action is Attainment....
effective December
26, 2007.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Early Action Compact Area, effective date deferred until April 15, 2008.
\3\ November 22, 2004.
[[Page 72953]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-24959 Filed 12-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P