Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 62159 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0019(a); FRL–9741– 

2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina 

Portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock 

Hill, North Carolina-North Carolina 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area; Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve state implementation 

plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR), on June 15, 2007, as updated on 

November 30, 2009, to address the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock 

Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, 

North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘bi-state 

Charlotte Area’’) is comprised of 

Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a 

portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle 

Creek Townships) Counties in North 

Carolina (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’’); and a portion of York 

County in South Carolina. EPA is also 

providing the status of its adequacy 

determination for the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) for volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 

oxide (NOx) that were included in 

North Carolina’s RFP plan. Further, EPA 

is approving these MVEB. These actions 

are being taken pursuant to section 110 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA 

will take action on South Carolina’s RFP 

plan for its portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area, in a separate action. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

December 11, 2012 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by November 13, 2012. If EPA 

receives such comments, it will publish 

a timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule in the Federal Register and inform 

the public that the rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number, ‘‘EPA– 

R04–OAR–2010–0019,’’ by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0019,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number, ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0019.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in 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: Ms. 

Sara Waterson of the Regulatory 

Development Section, in the Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9061. 

Ms. Sara Waterson can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the RFP plan 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte area? 

IV. What is the 2008 NOx emissions 

inventory for the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte area? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 2008 VOC 

MVEB for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte area? 

VI. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the 2008 VOC MVEB 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte area? 

VII. Final Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving revisions to the 

North Carolina SIP, submitted by the 

State of North Carolina through NC 

DENR, on June 15, 2007, as updated on 

November 30, 2009, to meet RFP 

requirements of the CAA for the North 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
62160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Originally, North Carolina submitted SIP 

revisions, including an attainment demonstration, 

on June 15, 2007, to address nonattainment 

requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, North Carolina submitted an 

attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a 

RFP plan, contingency measures, emissions 

statement, a 2002 base year emissions inventory 

and other planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. North Carolina withdrew the June 15, 2007, 

attainment demonstration SIP for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area on 

December 19, 2008. On November 12, 2009, North 

Carolina resubmitted the attainment demonstration 

SIP, and on November 30, 2009, North Carolina 

provided an update for the June 15, 2007, RFP plan 

for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. 

2North Carolina did not withdraw any elements 

related to reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements, to the extent that these 

requirements were addressed in the attainment 

demonstration submissions. 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The RFP plan demonstrates that VOC 

emissions will be reduced by at least 15 

percent for the period of 2002 through 

2008. Additionally, EPA is approving 

the required 2008 VOC MVEB and 

optional 2008 NOx MVEB which were 

included in the RFP plan for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. EPA is taking these actions 

because they are consistent with CAA 

requirements for the requirements for 

RFP. The MVEB for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, 

expressed in kilograms per day (kgd), 

are provided in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—MVEB FOR THE NORTH

CAROLINA PORTION OF THE 1997 8- 

HOUR BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

VOC NOX

2008 County-level Subarea MVEB (kg/d) 

Carbarrus .......................... 6,941 7,324 

Gaston .............................. 5,132 7,647 

Iredell* ............................... 3,601 5,637 

Lincoln .............................. 2,726 2,948 

Mecklenburg ..................... 26,368 34,526 

Rowan ............................... 6,149 7,193 

Union ................................ 6,299 5,660 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell 

County that is in the nonattainment area for 

the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

EPA is also describing the status of its 

transportation conformity adequacy 

determination for the 2008 MVEB. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

action? 

A. General Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm). Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when 

rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, 

April 30, 2004). Ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

must meet the data completeness 

requirement as determined in 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix I. The ambient air 

quality monitoring data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than 90 

percent, and no single year has less than 

75 percent data completeness. 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA 

to designate as nonattainment any area 

that is violating the NAAQS, based on 

the three most recent years of ambient 

air quality data at the conclusion of the 

designation process. The bi-state 

Charlotte Area was designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 

(effective June 15, 2004) using 2001– 

2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 

23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of 

designation the bi-state Charlotte Area 

was classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, 

Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, 

EPA established ozone nonattainment 

area attainment dates based on Table 1 

of section 181(a) of the CAA. This 

established an attainment date six years 

after the June 15, 2004, effective date for 

areas classified as moderate areas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

designations. Section 181 of the CAA 

explains that the attainment date for 

moderate nonattainment areas shall be 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than six years after designation, or 

June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s original attainment date 

was June 15, 2010. See 69 FR 23951, 

April 30, 2004. 

The bi-state Charlotte Area did not 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 

June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment 

date for moderate nonattainment areas); 

however, the Area qualified for an 

extension of the attainment date. Under 

certain circumstances, the CAA allows 

for extensions of the attainment dates 

prescribed at the time of the original 

nonattainment designation. In 

accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5), 

EPA may grant up to 2 one-year 

extensions of the attainment date under 

specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, 

EPA determined that North Carolina 

and South Carolina met the CAA 

requirements to obtain a one-year 

extension of the attainment date for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bistate Charlotte Area. See 76 FR 31245. 

As a result, EPA extended the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s attainment date from 

June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

On November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), 

EPA determined the bi-state Charlotte 

Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS; and subsequently, on March 7, 

2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined 

that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. The 

determination of attaining data was 

based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data for the 2008–2010 period, showing 

that the bi-state Charlotte Area had 

monitored attainment of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements 

for the bi-state Charlotte Area to submit 

an attainment demonstration and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIP revisions related to 

attainment of the standard were 

suspended as a result of the 

determination of attainment, so long as 

the bi-state Charlotte Area continues to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1

See 40 CFR 52.1779(a). 

On December 21, 2011, North 

Carolina withdrew the attainment 

demonstration submissions (except RFP, 

emissions statements, and the emissions 

inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area.2 Subsequently, 

EPA approved North Carolina’s SIP 

revisions related to the emissions 

statements and emissions inventory 

requirements for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the 

EPA action related to the emissions 

statements requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 24382 

(April 24, 2012) and 64 FR 41277 

(August 1, 1997). For the EPA action 

related to the emissions inventory 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, see 77 FR 26441 (May 4, 2012). 

Despite the determination of attainment, 

North Carolina opted to leave the SIP 

submissions related to the RFP 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS before EPA for action. As such, 

EPA is taking action to approve 

revisions to North Carolina’s SIP 

submitted on June 15, 2007, as updated 

on November 30, 2009, as it relates to 

the RFP requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

B. Background for RFP 

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 62161 

3RFP regulations are at 40 CFR 51.910. 

4Some areas that were designated as moderate or 

above for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS may have 

implemented Rate of Progress plans (i.e., plans 

similar to the RFP requirements) by which the area 

would have achieved at least a 15 percent reduction 

in VOC from an initial baseline. Such areas have the 

flexibility to meet RFP requirements through a 

reduction in VOC or nitrogen oxides, after the 

initial achievement in a reduction of at least 15 

percent for VOC emissions for the area. 

5North Carolina’s November 30, 2009, SIP 

revision only addressed RFP and is being acted on 

in its entirety in this action. 

6The bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2011, based on 

2008- 2010 data. 

31727), EPA published a rule entitled 

‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To 

Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 

Amendments Relating to New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 

Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone 

NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated 

Gasoline’’ (hereafter referred to as the 

Phase 2 Rule). Section 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA and EPA’s Phase 2 Rule 3 require 

a state, for each 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area that is classified as 

moderate, to submit an emissions 

inventory and a RFP plan to show how 

the state will reduce emissions of VOC. 

The bi-state Charlotte Area had an 

attainment date of June 15, 2010 (i.e., 

that is beyond five years after 

designation), that was later extended to 

June 15, 2011. See 76 FR 31245 (May 31, 

2011). For a moderate area with an 

attainment date of more than five years 

after designation, the RFP plan must 

obtain a 15 percent reduction in ozone 

precursor emissions for the first six 

years after the baseline year (2002 

through 2008). Since the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area did 

not have a previous plan to address RFP 

requirements,4 the initial RFP 

requirement for the Area must be met 

through VOC reductions as required by 

the 1990 CAA Amendments. 

Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), 

RFP plans must include contingency 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the state or EPA, 

which includes additional controls that 

would be implemented if the area fails 

to reach the RFP milestones. While the 

CAA does not specify the type of 

measures or quantity of emissions 

reductions required, EPA provided 

guidance interpreting the CAA that 

implementation of these contingency 

measures would provide additional 

emissions reductions of up to 3 percent 

of the adjusted base year inventory in 

the year following the RFP milestone 

year (i.e., in this case 2008). For more 

information on contingency measures 

please see the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 

November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour 

ozone standard implementation rule (70 

FR 71612, 71650). Finally, RFP plans 

must also include a MVEB for the 

precursors for which the plan is 

developed. The State also had the 

option of developing MVEB for other 

precursors. See Section V of this 

rulemaking for more information on 

MVEB requirements. 

On June 15, 2007, and later updated 

on November 30, 2009, North Carolina 

submitted the RFP plan for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to address the CAA’s requirements 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

June 15, 2007, SIP revision (as updated 

on November 30, 2009) included an 

attainment demonstration plan, RFP 

plan for 2008, contingency measures, 

RACT, RACM requirements, on-road 

VOC and NOx MVEB, and the 2002 base 

year emissions inventory. These 

revisions to the SIP were subject to 

notice and comment by the public and 

the State addressed the comments 

received on the proposed SIP revisions. 

Today’s rulemaking is approving only 

the RFP plan, including the associated 

MVEB. The remainder of North 

Carolina’s June 15, 2007, submittal was 

addressed by previous EPA actions, or 

by the State’s withdrawal of 

submissions that were no longer 

necessary.5

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the RFP 

plan for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte area? 

On June 15, 2007, and later updated 

on November 30, 2009, North Carolina 

submitted the RFP plan for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area to address the CAA’s requirements 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Below provides EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s RFP submission. 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

An emissions inventory is a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources and is required by section 

182(a)(1) of the CAA. Because the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area as part of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area did not implement the 15 percent 

VOC reductions for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the requirement for North 

Carolina to meet RFP is a 15 percent 

VOC reduction between 2002 and 2008 

with continued progress toward 

attainment through attainment.6 EPA 

recommended 2002 as the base year 

emissions inventory, and is therefore 

the starting point for calculating RFP. 

North Carolina submitted its 2002 base 

year emissions inventory on June 15, 

2007. In an action on May 4, 2012, EPA 

approved North Carolina’s 2002 base 

year emissions inventory for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

See 77 FR 26441. A summary of the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area 2002 base year emissions 

inventories is included in Table 2 

below. 

TABLE 2—2002 POINT AND AREA SOURCES ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE BI-STATE

CHARLOTTE AREA

[Tons per summer day] 

County 

Point Area Non-Road Mobile 

NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Cabarrus .......................... 2.6 2.2 0.8 6.0 5.4 2.7 17.2 21.5 

Gaston .............................. 34.8 2.5 1.3 8.9 4.9 2.9 20.0 13.5 

Iredell* .............................. 10.8 2.1 0.9 5.8 4.4 2.7 29.9 17.6 

Lincoln .............................. 0.3 2.1 0.5 3.1 1.9 1.3 6.1 7.1 

Mecklenburg ..................... 2.1 5.7 7.0 29.4 32.1 24.1 78.7 68.0 

Rowan .............................. 11.0 6.3 0.8 5.6 4.1 2.3 19.7 14.8 

Union ................................ 0.2 1.0 1.0 6.4 7.7 4.7 11.3 13.0 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
62162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the plan to 

demonstrate progress towards attainment was 

known as the ROP plan. For the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, this same plan is known as the RFP plan. 

As mentioned above, EPA has already 

approved this emissions inventory in a 

prior action. 

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 

2008 RFP Target Levels 

The process for determining the 

emissions baseline from which the RFP 

reductions are calculated is described in 

section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 

51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 

adjusted base year inventory. Sections 

182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the 

exclusion from the base year inventory 

of emissions benefits resulting from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by 

January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated 

June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The 

FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions 

are determined by the State using EPA’s 

on-road mobile source emissions 

modeling software, MOBILE6. The 

FMVCP and RVP emission reductions 

are then removed from the base year 

inventory by the State, resulting in an 

adjusted base year inventory. The 

emission reductions needed to satisfy 

the RFP requirement are then calculated 

from the adjusted base year inventory. 

These reductions are then subtracted 

from the adjusted base year inventory to 

establish the emissions target for the 

RFP milestone year (2008). 

For moderate areas like the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area (as part of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area), the CAA specifies a 15 percent 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

over an initial six year period following 

the baseline inventory year. In the Phase 

2 Rule, EPA interpreted this 

requirement for areas that were also 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as moderate or higher for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA 

provided that an area classified as 

moderate or higher that has the same 

boundaries as an area, or is entirely 

composed of several areas or portions of 

areas, for which EPA fully approved a 

15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, 

is considered to have met the 

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In this 

situation, a moderate nonattainment 

area is subject to RFP under section 

172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, 

no later than 3 years after designation 

for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision 

that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must 

provide for a 15 percent emission 

reduction (either nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and/or VOC) accounting for any growth 

that occurs during the six year period 

following the baseline emissions 

inventory year, that is, 2002–2008. 

The portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area that was classified as moderate 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

contained the counties of Gaston and 

Mecklenburg in North Carolina. Gaston 

and Mecklenburg counties were also 

designated nonattainment as a part of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone moderate bi-state 

Charlotte Area. Although a portion of 

this bi-state Charlotte Area was 

classified as moderate for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, a 15 percent rate of 

progress (ROP) 7 plan was not submitted 

due to its change in attainment status. 

Specifically, North Carolina submitted a 

redesignation and maintenance plan 

request instead before the due date of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS ROP plan. 

Therefore, because the bi-state Charlotte 

Area did not implement a 15 percent 

ROP plan under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the Area must have VOC 

reductions totaling at least 15 percent 

for the first six years following the 

baseline inventory year of 2002 in order 

for the RFP plan to be approved. 

As mentioned earlier and according to 

section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, 

emission reductions that resulted from 

the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated 

prior to 1990 are not creditable for 

achieving RFP emission reductions. 

Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory 

is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and 

NOx emission reductions that are 

expected to occur between 2002 and the 

future milestone years due to the 

FMVCP and RVP rules. 

In the Phase 2 Rule, promulgated on 

November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA 

outlines Method 1 as the process that 

states should use to show compliance 

with RFP for areas like the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area. A summary of the steps for 

Method 1 is provided below. 

• Step A is the actual anthropogenic 

base year VOC emissions inventory in 

2002. 

• Step B is to account for creditable 

emissions for RFP. 

• Step C is to calculate non-creditable 

emissions for RFP. Non-creditable 

emissions include emissions from: (1) 

Motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative 

emissions regulations promulgated by 

January 1, 1990; (2) regulations concern 

RVP promulgated by November 15, 

1990; (3) RACT corrections required 

prior to November 1990; and (4) 

corrective inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) plan required prior to November 

1990. 

• Step D is the 2002 base year 

emissions (Step A) minus the noncreditable emissions (Step C). 

• Step E is to calculate the 2008 target 

level VOC emissions. This is calculated 

by reducing the emissions from Step D 

by 15 percent. 

• The estimated 2008 VOC emissions 

are then compared to the 2008 target 

level VOC emissions (Step E). 

As provided in North Carolina’s RFP 

SIP revision, the State utilized the steps 

from Method 1 of the Phase 2 Rule. 

Specifically, North Carolina’s November 

30, 2009, SIP revision sets out the 

State’s calculations. 

1. Step A: Estimate the actual 

anthropogenic base year VOC inventory 

in 2002 with all 2002 control programs 

in place for all sources. 

North Carolina provided this emission 

inventory in Table 3–1 of the November 

30, 2009, RFP plan for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area, and as shown in Table 3, below. 

As mentioned above, EPA has already 

approved this inventory. See 77 FR 

26441 (May 4, 2012). 

TABLE 3—2002 VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

[Tons per summer day] 

County Point Area Non-road 

mobile 

On-road 

mobile Total 

Cabarrus .............................................................................. 2.2 6.0 2.7 20.5 31.4 

Gaston .................................................................................. 2.5 8.9 2.9 13.3 27.6 

Iredell* .................................................................................. 0.9 1.9 0.9 6.6 10.3 

Lincoln .................................................................................. 2.1 3.1 1.3 6.7 13.2 

Mecklenburg ......................................................................... 5.7 29.4 24.1 66.1 125.3 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 62163 

TABLE 3—2002 VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA— 

Continued 

[Tons per summer day] 

County Point Area Non-road 

mobile 

On-road 

mobile Total 

Rowan .................................................................................. 6.3 5.6 2.3 14.2 28.4 

Union .................................................................................... 1.0 6.4 4.7 12.3 24.4 

Total .............................................................................. 20.7 61.3 38.9 139.7 260.6 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area 

2. Step B: Using the same highway 

vehicle activity inputs used to calculate 

the actual 2002 inventory, run the 

appropriate motor vehicle emissions 

model for 2002 and for 2008 with all 

post-1990 CAA measures turned off. 

Any other local inputs for vehicle I/M 

programs should be set according to the 

program that was required to be in place 

in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 

or 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) 

depending on the RVP required in the 

local area as a result of fuel RVP 

regulations promulgated in June, 1990. 

For the North Carolina portion of the 

bi-state Charlotte Area, the RACT and I/ 

M program corrections and the 1992 

RVP requirements were completely in 

place by 1996 and therefore are already 

accounted for in the 2002 baseline. As 

a result, these measures would produce 

no additional reductions between 2002 

and 2008 or later milestone years. 

3. Step C: Calculate the difference 

between the 2002 and 2008 VOC 

emission factors calculated in Step B 

and multiply by the 2002 vehicle miles 

traveled. The result is the VOC emission 

calculation that will occur between 

2002 and 2008 without the benefits of 

any post-1990–CAA measures. These 

are the non-creditable reductions that 

occur over this period. 

North Carolina calculated the noncreditable emission reductions between 

2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 

2008 motor vehicle emissions with all 

post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and 

calculating the difference. The table 

below (as present in Table 4–8 of North 

Carolina’s November 30, 2009, SIP 

revision) shows that there is 

approximately a 10.0 tons per day (tpd) 

difference. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA NON-CREDITABLE VOC 

EMISSION ESTIMATES (TPD) 

County Non-creditable 

VOC emissions 

Cabarrus ........................... 1.688 

Gaston .............................. 0.912 

Iredell* ............................... 0.822 

Lincoln .............................. 0.633 

Mecklenburg ..................... 3.384 

Rowan ............................... 1.315 

Union ................................ 1.230 

Total ........................... 9.984 or 10.0 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell 

County that is in the nonattainment area for 

the bi-state Charlotte Area 

4. Step D: Subtract the non-creditable 

reductions calculated in Step C from the 

actual anthropogenic 2002 inventory 

estimated in Step A. This adjusted VOC 

inventory is the basis for calculating the 

target level of emissions in 2008. 

The adjusted VOC inventory for 

calculating the target level of VOC 

emissions reductions for 2008 is 250.6 

tpd (i.e., 260.6 tpd (i.e., result of Step A) 

and 10.0 tpd (i.e., the result of Step C)). 

5. Step E: Reduce the adjusted VOC 

inventory calculated in Step D by 15 

percent. The result is the target level of 

VOC emissions in 2008 in order to meet 

the 2008 RFP requirement. The actual 

projected 2008 inventory for all sources 

with all control measures in place, 

including projected 2008 growth in 

activity, must be at or lower than this 

target level of emissions. 

The targeted level of emissions 

reductions for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to 

meet RFP requirements is 37.6 tpd of 

VOC (i.e, 250.6 tpd multiplied by 15 

percent). Thus the required targeted 

level of VOC emissions is 213.0 tpd for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. 

C. Final Analysis of North Carolina’s 

RFP Analysis for the North Carolina 

Portion of the Bi-State Charlotte Area 

As mentioned above, the required 

target level for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area to 

meet the initial RFP plan requirement is 

a 15 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions for 2008 from the VOC 

emissions in 2002 (as adjusted per CAA 

requirements). Specifically, to meet this 

requirement, North Carolina needed to 

demonstrate a reduction of at least 37.6 

tpd. Table 5 below summarizes the 

results of North Carolina’s calculations 

for this RFP analysis. 

TABLE 5—15 PERCENT RFP ANALYSIS FOR NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

Step from method 1 Matrix VOC 

(tpd) 

Step A ............................... Total 2002 Base Year Anthropogenic VOC Emissions ................................................................................... 260.6 

Step C ............................... Non-Creditable VOC reductions ...................................................................................................................... 10.0 

Step D ............................... 2002 Base Year minus the Non-Creditable Emissions ................................................................................... 250.6 

Step E ............................... 2008 Target Level of VOC Emissions ............................................................................................................. 213.0 

In its November 30, 2009, SIP 

revision, North Carolina calculated the 

2008 VOC emissions inventory for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. This emissions 

inventory is provided in Table 6 below. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
62164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—2008 BASELINE VOC EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

County Point Area Non-road 

mobile 

On-road 

mobile Total 

Cabarrus .............................................................................. 2.3 5.9 1.5 10.4 20.1 

Gaston .................................................................................. 2.7 9.4 2.0 7.5 21.6 

Iredell* .................................................................................. 0.7 1.8 0.5 5.4 8.4 

Lincoln .................................................................................. 2.1 2.9 0.8 4.2 10.0 

Mecklenburg ......................................................................... 5.9 30.1 13.0 38.0 87.0 

Rowan .................................................................................. 6.0 5.6 1.5 14.2 22.3 

Union .................................................................................... 1.2 5.7 1.7 9.9 18.5 

Total .............................................................................. 20.9 61.4 21.0 84.6 187.9 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area 

As discussed above, the required 

target for VOC emissions for the year 

2008 for North Carolina to meet the RFP 

requirements for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area is 

213.0 tpd (i.e., 15 percent reduction 

from the adjusted 2002 baseline). As 

revealed in Table 6, North Carolina 

calculated an emissions inventory of 

187.9 tpd of VOC for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in 

2008, which is well below the 213.0 tpd 

required target. Thus, EPA is making the 

determination that North Carolina’s SIP 

revision demonstrates the required 

progress towards attainment for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. In today’s action, EPA is 

approving North Carolina’s RFP SIP 

revision submitted on June 15, 2007 (as 

updated on November 30, 2009) as 

meeting the CAA and EPA’s regulations 

regarding RFP. 

IV. What is the 2008 NOX emissions 

inventory for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte area? 

In support of its development of a 

NOx MVEB for the 2008, North 

Carolina, in its November 30, 2009, SIP 

revision, developed the NOx emissions 

inventory for the North Carolina portion 

of the bi-state Charlotte Area. This 

inventory is not required for the RFP 

plan but is necessary for the 

development of the MVEB. This 

emissions inventory is provided in 

Table 7 below. 

TABLE 7—2008 BASELINE NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

County Point Area Non-road 

mobile 

On-road 

mobile Total 

Cabarrus .............................................................................. 2.6 1.5 4.1 9.6 17.8 

Gaston .................................................................................. 32.8 2.2 4.8 10.0 49.8 

Iredell* .................................................................................. 0.5 0.4 0.9 6.9 8.7 

Lincoln .................................................................................. 9.3 0.7 1.4 3.7 15.1 

Mecklenburg ......................................................................... 2.0 11.3 20.9 45.6 79.8 

Rowan .................................................................................. 22.4 1.3 4.6 9.5 37.8 

Union .................................................................................... 0.2 1.5 3.3 7.4 12.4 

Total .............................................................................. 69.8 18.9 40.0 92.7 221.4 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell County that is in the nonattainment area for the bi-state Charlotte Area 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 2008 

MVEB for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstrations) and 

maintenance plans create MVEB for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, an 

MVEB must be established for the target 

year and precursor pollutant of the RFP 

(i.e., in this case, for the target year of 

2008 and for VOC). A state may adopt 

MVEB for other precursors as well. 

North Carolina also opted to establish a 

MVEB for NOX for the year 2008. The 

MVEB is the portion of the total 

allowable emissions in the maintenance 

demonstration that is allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use and 

emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, Transportation 

Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 62165 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB. 

After interagency consultation with 

the transportation partners for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area, North Carolina developed VOC 

and NOX MVEB for the year 2008. 

Specifically, North Carolina developed 

these MVEB, as required, for the target 

year and precursor—2008 and VOC—for 

the RFP plan, and chose to establish an 

additional MVEB for NOX for the year 

2008. The MVEB for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

North Carolina’s 2008 RFP plan are 

based on the projected 2008 mobile 

source emissions accounting for all 

mobile control measures. The 2008 

MVEB are defined in Table 8 below. 

TABLE 8—MVEB FOR NORTH CAROLINA PORTION OF THE 1997 8-HOUR

BI-STATE CHARLOTTE AREA

VOC NOx 

2008 County-level Subarea MVEB (kg/d) 

Carbarrus .......................... 6,941 7,324 

Gaston .............................. 5,132 7,647 

Iredell* ............................... 3,601 5,637 

Lincoln .............................. 2,726 2,948 

Mecklenburg ..................... 26,368 34,526 

Rowan ............................... 6,149 7,193 

Union ................................ 6,299 5,660 

* Represents only the portion of Iredell 

County that is in the nonattainment area for 

the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

approving the 2008 VOC and NOX

MVEB for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area because EPA 

has made the determination that the 

Area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with the emissions at the levels 

of the budgets. Once the MVEB for the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area are approved or found 

adequate (whichever is completed first), 

they must be used for future conformity 

determinations for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations’ long-range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs. After thorough 

review, EPA has previously determined 

that the budgets meet the adequacy 

criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) (see 75 FR 7474, February 

19, 2010), and is now approving the 

budgets because they are consistent 

with RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the year 2008. 

VI. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 2008 

MVEB for the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte area? 

When reviewing a submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIP, RFP or maintenance plan 

containing a MVEB, EPA may 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB 

is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, that MVEB must 

be used by state and federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process 

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: public notification of 

a SIP submission, a public comment 

period, and EPA’s adequacy 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEB for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments: 

Response to Court Decision and 

Additional Rule Changes,’’ 68 FR 38974, 

38984 (June 30, 2003). 

As discussed earlier, North Carolina’s 

RFP plan submission includes VOC and 

NOx MVEB for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area for 

the year 2008. EPA reviewed the MVEB 

through the adequacy process. The 

North Carolina SIP submission, 

including the 2008 MVEB for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area, was open for public comment on 

EPA’s adequacy Web site on December 

3, 2009, found at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

currsips.htm. The EPA public comment 

period on adequacy of the 2008 MVEB 

for the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area, closed on January 

3, 2010. EPA did not receive any 

comments, adverse or otherwise, during 

the adequacy process. In a letter sent on 

January 12, 2010, EPA notified NC 

DENR that the MOBILE6.2-based 2008 

VOC MVEB for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area 

were determined to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. On 

February 19, 2010, EPA published its 

adequacy notice in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 7474). When EPA found the 2008 

MVEB adequate, this triggered a 

requirement that the new MVEB are 

used for future transportation 

conformity determinations. For required 

regional emissions analysis years 

beyond 2008, the applicable budgets are 

the 2008 MVEB. The 2008 MVEB are 

defined in sections I and V of this 

rulemaking. 

VII. Final Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve portions of a SIP revision, 

submitted on June 15, 2007 (as later 

updated on November 30, 2009), by the 

State of North Carolina, through the NC 

DENR to meet the RFP requirements for 

the North Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is 

approving the VOC MVEB for the North 

Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area that were included in North 

Carolina’s RFP plan. These actions are 

being taken pursuant to section 110 of 

the CAA. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a non-controversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comment be filed. This 

rule will be effective on December 11, 

2012 without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comment by 

November 13, 2012. If EPA receives 

such comments, then EPA will publish 

a document withdrawing the final rule 

and informing the public that the rule 

will not take effect. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. If 

no such comments are received, the 

public is advised this rule will be 

effective on December 11, 2012 and no 

further action will be taken on the 

proposed rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
62166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

VIII. 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. 

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 that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this final action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is 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 

• Does 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). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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 action 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 December 11, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 2, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1770(e), is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘1997 8-hour 

ozone reasonable further progress plan 

for North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’’ to the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 52. 1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date 

EPA Approval 

date Federal Register citation 

*******

1997 8-hour ozone reasonable further progress plan 

for North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte 

Area.

11/30/09 10/12/12 [Insert citation of publication]. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25181 Filed 10–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES