52226 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

governmental unit or its agencies, or by 

the issuer. Thus, for example, for bonds 

to be issued by an authority that acts on 

behalf of a county, the hearing may be 

conducted by the authority, the county, 

or an appointee of either. 

(3) Reasonable public notice. 

Reasonable public notice means notice 

that is reasonably designed to inform 

residents of the affected governmental 

units, including residents of the issuing 

governmental unit and the 

governmental unit where a facility is to 

be located, of the proposed issue. The 

notice must state the time and place for 

the public hearing and contain the 

information required under paragraph 

(b) of this section. Notice is presumed 

reasonable if given no fewer than seven 

(7) business days before the public 

hearing in one of the ways permitted by 

this paragraph (c)(2). Notice is treated as 

reasonably designed to inform affected 

residents of an approving governmental 

unit if it is given in one of the following 

ways: 

(i) Newspaper publication. Public 

notice may be given by publication in 

one or more newspapers of general 

circulation available to the residents of 

the governmental unit. 

(ii) Radio or television broadcast. 

Public notice may be given by radio or 

television broadcast to the residents of 

the governmental unit. 

(iii) Governmental unit Web site 

posting. Public notice may be given by 

electronic posting on the approving 

governmental unit’s Web site for its 

residents, provided that the 

governmental unit regularly uses that 

Web site to inform its residents about 

events affecting the residents (including 

notice of public meetings of the 

governmental unit) and the 

governmental unit offers a reasonable, 

publicly known alternative method for 

obtaining this information for residents 

without access to computers (such as 

phone recordings). 

(iv) Alternative State law public 

notice procedures. Public notice may be 

given in a way that is permitted under 

a general State law for public notices for 

public hearings for the approving 

governmental unit. 

(4) Writing. Unless specifically stated 

otherwise in this section, if permitted by 

the governmental unit, the term writing 

includes electronic communication. 

(5) Mortgage revenue bonds. The term 

mortgage revenue bonds means 

qualified mortgage bonds under section 

143(a) of the Code or qualified veterans’

mortgage bonds under section 143(b) of 

the Code. 

(d) Special rule on required 

governmental unit approvals for certain 

types of financings. In applying section 

147(f)(2) and § 5f.103–2(c) of this 

chapter to mortgage revenue bonds 

under section 143, to qualified student 

loan bonds under section 144(b), and to 

the portion of an issue of qualified 

501(c)(3) bonds under section 145 that 

finance working capital expenditures, 

the governmental unit by or on behalf of 

which those types of bonds are issued 

is treated as the only governmental unit 

required to provide a public approval 

and no separate public approval is 

required by a host governmental unit 

with respect to the location, if any, of 

a financed facility. 

(e) Effective/applicability date. Except 

as otherwise provided in this section, 

§ 1.147(f)–1 applies to bonds that are 

sold on or after the date of publication 

of final regulations in the Federal 

Register and that are subject to section 

147(f). 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E8–20771 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2005–0534–200816; FRL–

8712–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans North Carolina: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the North Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of North Carolina in three 

submittals dated November 30, 2005, 

March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008. The 

proposed revisions modify North 

Carolina’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

regulations in the SIP to address 

changes to the federal New Source 

Review (NSR) regulations, which were 

promulgated by EPA on December 31, 

2002, and reconsidered with minor 

changes on November 7, 2003 

(collectively, these two final actions are 

referred to as the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform 

Rules’’). In addition, the proposed 

revisions address an update to the NSR 

regulations promulgated by EPA on 

November 29, 2005 (‘‘Ozone 

Implementation NSR update’’) relating 

to the implementation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

proposed revisions include provisions 

for baseline emissions calculations, an 

actual-to-projected-actual methodology 

for calculating emissions changes, 

options for plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs), recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements, and provisions 

recognizing nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a 

precursor to ozone. The June 20, 2008, 

SIP submittal also contains proposed 

revisions that are not related to EPA’s 

2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA will 

propose action on those revisions in a 

separate Federal Register notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 9, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–

OAR–2005–0534, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–0534’’

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. 

Yolanda Adams, 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 No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2005–

0534.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 52227 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 

http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the North 

Carolina State Implementation Plan, 

contact Ms. Nacosta Ward, 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. 

Telephone number: (404) 562–9140; email address: ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

For information regarding New Source 

Review, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, 

Air Permits Section, at the same address 

above. Telephone number: (404) 562–

9214; e-mail address: 

adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, references 

to ‘‘EPA,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ are 

intended to mean the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The supplementary 

information is arranged as follows: 

I. What action is EPA proposing today? 

II. Why is EPA proposing this action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s NSR rule revisions? 

IV. What action is EPA taking today? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing today? 

On November 30, 2005, March 16, 

2007, and June 20, 2008, the State of 

North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (DENR), 

submitted revisions to the North 

Carolina SIP. The SIP submittals consist 

of revisions to North Carolina Air 

Quality Rules, Subchapter 2D. 

Specifically, the November 30, 2005, 

proposed SIP revisions include changes 

to Regulation 15A (North Carolina 

Administrative Code) NCAC 2D .0531, 

‘‘Sources in Nonattainment Areas.’’ The 

March 16, 2007, submittal includes 

changes to Regulation 15A NCAC 2D 

.0530, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration.’’ The June 20, 2008, 

submittal consists of additional changes 

to Regulations 15A NCAC 2D .0530, and 

.0531. DENR submitted these revisions 

in response to EPA’s December 31, 

2002, November 7, 2003, and November 

29, 2005, revisions to the Federal NSR 

program. Pursuant to section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘Act’’), EPA is 

now proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions. The June 20, 2008, submittal 

also included revisions to NCAC 

Subchapter 2D, Section .2400, Clean Air 

Interstate Rules, which EPA is not 

taking action on at this time. 

II. Why is EPA proposing this action? 

On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), 

EPA published final rule changes to 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

51 and 52, regarding the CAA’s PSD and 

NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 

(68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice 

of final action on the reconsideration of 

the December 31, 2002, final rule 

changes. In that November 7, 2003, final 

action, EPA added the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit,’’ and clarified an 

issue regarding PALs. The December 31, 

2002, and the November 7, 2003, final 

actions are collectively referred to as the 

‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ The purpose 

of this action is to propose to approve 

the SIP submittals from the State of 

North Carolina that include the 

provisions of EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules. 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part 

of EPA’s implementation of Parts C and 

D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470–

7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 

U.S.C. 7470–7492, is the PSD program, 

which applies in areas that meet the 

NAAQS—‘‘attainment’’ areas—as well 

as in areas for which there is 

insufficient information to determine 

whether the area meets the NAAQS—

‘‘unclassifiable’’ areas. Part D of title I of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501–7515, is the 

NNSR program, which applies in areas 

that are not in attainment of the 

NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment’’ areas. 

Collectively, the PSD and NNSR 

programs are referred to as the ‘‘New 

Source Review’’ or NSR programs. EPA 

regulations implementing these 

programs are contained in 40 CFR 

51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 

51, Appendix S. 

The CAA’s NSR programs are 

preconstruction review and permitting 

programs applicable to new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants regulated under the CAA. 

The NSR programs of the CAA include 

a combination of air quality planning 

and air pollution control technology 

program requirements. Briefly, section 

109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires 

EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to 

protect public health and secondary 

NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once 

EPA sets those standards, states must 

develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for 

approval, a SIP that contains emissions 

limitations and other control measures 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each 

SIP is required to contain a 

preconstruction review program for the 

construction and modification of any 

stationary source of air pollution to 

assure that the NAAQS are achieved 

and maintained; to protect areas of clean 

air; to protect air quality related values 

(such as visibility) in national parks and 

other areas; to assure that appropriate 

emissions controls are applied; to 

maximize opportunities for economic 

development consistent with the 

preservation of clean air resources; and 

to ensure that any decision to increase 

air pollution is made only after full 

public consideration of the 

consequences of the decision. 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made 

changes to five areas of the NSR 

programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: 

(1) Provide a new method for 

determining baseline actual emissions; 

(2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual 

methodology for determining whether a 

major modification has occurred; (3) 

allow major stationary sources to 

comply with PALs to avoid having a 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
52228 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA promulgated the ERP on October 27, 2003 

(68 FR 61248). The ERP was challenged and the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the ERP on 

December 24, 2003. On March 17, 2006, the Court 

vacated the ERP. See New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 

880 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

significant emissions increase that 

triggers the requirements of the major 

NSR program; (4) provided a new 

applicability provision for emissions 

units that are designated clean units; 

and (5) excluded pollution control 

projects (PCPs) from the definition of 

‘‘physical change or change in the 

method of operation.’’ On November 7, 

2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a 

notice of final action on its 

reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, which added a definition for 

‘‘replacement unit’’ and clarified an 

issue regarding PALs. For additional 

information on the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, see, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

were finalized and effective (March 3, 

2003), industry, state, and 

environmental petitioners challenged 

numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, along with portions of 

EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, 

August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit Court) issued a decision on the 

challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules. New York v. United States, 413 

F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In summary, the 

D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of 

the rules pertaining to clean units and 

PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules 

regarding recordkeeping, e.g. 40 CFR 

52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and 

either upheld or did not comment on 

the other provisions included as part of 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On June 13, 

2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final 

action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules to remove from federal law all 

provisions pertaining to clean units and 

the PCP exemption that were vacated by 

the D.C. Circuit Court. 

With regard to the remanded portions 

of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to 

recordkeeping, on December 21, 2007, 

EPA took final action and established 

that a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ applies 

where source emissions equal or exceed 

50 percent of the CAA NSR significance 

levels for any pollutant (72 FR 72607). 

The ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision 

identifies for sources and reviewing 

authorities the circumstances under 

which a major stationary source 

undergoing a modification that does not 

trigger major NSR must keep records. 

Also relevant to DENR’s submittals, 

on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

EPA promulgated implementation 

provisions for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS—Phase 2, which made changes 

to the NSR regulations. These included, 

among other requirements, a 

requirement that emissions of NOX be 

considered ozone precursors. States 

were required to submit SIP revisions 

incorporating these changes by no later 

than June 15, 2007. 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require 

that state agencies adopt and submit 

revisions to their SIP permitting 

programs implementing the minimum 

program elements of the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules no later than January 2, 

2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 

CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i), state agencies are 

now required to adopt and submit SIP 

revisions within three years after new 

amendments are published in the 

Federal Register.) State agencies may 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51 

and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules with 

different but equivalent regulations. 

On November 30, 2005, March 16, 

2007, and June 20, 2008, the North 

Carolina DENR submitted revisions to 

EPA for the purpose of revising the 

State’s NSR permitting provisions to 

adopt EPA’s NSR Reform Rules and the 

Ozone Implementation NSR update. 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

submittals pursuant to section 110 of 

the CAA. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Carolina’s NSR rule revisions? 

North Carolina currently has a SIPapproved NSR program for new and 

modified stationary sources. EPA is now 

proposing to approve revisions to North 

Carolina’s existing NSR program. North 

Carolina’s SIP submittals consist of a 

compilation of amendments to State 

rules that became State-effective 

between May 1, 2005, and May 1, 2008. 

Copies of North Carolina’s revised NSR 

rules, as well as the State’s Technical 

Support Document, can be obtained 

from the Docket, as discussed in the 

ADDRESSES section above. A discussion 

of the specific changes to North 

Carolina’s rules comprising the 

proposed SIP revisions follows. 

North Carolina Regulation 15A NCAC 

2D .0530, ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration,’’ contains the 

preconstruction review program that 

provides for the prevention of 

significant deterioration of ambient air 

quality as required under Part C of title 

I of the CAA (the PSD program). The 

PSD program applies to sources that are 

major stationary sources or undergoing 

major modifications in areas that are 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable with regard to any 

NAAQS. North Carolina’s PSD program 

was originally approved into the SIP by 

EPA on February 23, 1982, and has been 

revised several times since then in order 

to remain consistent with federal rule 

changes. 

North Carolina’s permitting 

requirements for major sources in or 

impacting upon nonattainment areas are 

set forth at Regulation 15A NCAC 2D 

.0531, ‘‘Sources in Nonattainment 

Areas’’ (NNSR program). The North 

Carolina NNSR program was originally 

approved into the North Carolina SIP on 

July 26, 1982, and has been revised 

several times since then in order to 

remain consistent with federal rule 

changes. The NNSR requirements apply 

to the construction and modification of 

any major stationary source of air 

pollution in a nonattainment area, as 

required by Part D of title I of the CAA. 

To receive approval to construct, a 

source that is subject to these 

requirements must show that it will not 

cause a net increase in pollution, will 

not create a delay in meeting the 

NAAQS, and that the source will install 

and use control technology that 

achieves the lowest achievable 

emissions rate (LAER). 

The changes to North Carolina’s NSR 

rules, which EPA is now proposing to 

approve into the North Carolina SIP, 

were submitted to update the existing 

North Carolina rules to meet the 

requirements of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules and the Ozone Implementation 

NSR update. These SIP revisions 

address baseline actual emissions, 

actual-to-projected actual applicability 

tests, PALs, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, and provisions 

recognizing NOX as a precursor to 

ozone. North Carolina’s NSR rules 

incorporate by reference (IBR) the 

federal NSR rules at 40 CFR 51.166 and 

51.165, as amended June 13, 2007, 

except for the definition of ‘‘baseline 

actual emissions,’’ the stayed equipment 

replacement provisions (ERP) (69 FR 

40274, July 1, 2004),1 the PAL 

adjustment provisions at 

51.166(w)(10)(iv)(a) and 

51.165(f)(10)(iv)(A), the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements at 

51.166(r)(6) and 51.165(a)(6), and the 

Ozone Implementation NSR update 

provisions at 51.165(a)(8), (a)(9) and 

(a)(10). 

EPA’s evaluation of the North 

Carolina SIP submittals included a lineby-line comparison of the proposed 

revisions with the federal requirements. 

As a general matter, state agencies may 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 

51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, 

with different but equivalent 

regulations. As mentioned above, North 

Carolina chose to IBR the federal rules 

with several changes. The definition of 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 52229 

2Any allowances for emissions reductions 

achieved under the Clean Smokestacks Act are not 

available to the subject facilities, nor any other 

sources, and may not be used to offset emissions 

and avoid installation of BACT or LAER on new 

natural gas-fired units. 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ at 

subchapter 2D .0530(b)(1) and 

.0531(a)(1) was changed to remove the 

provision allowing emissions units that 

are not electric utility steam generating 

units (EUSGUs) to look back 10 years to 

select the baseline period. North 

Carolina rules treat EUSGUs and nonEUSGUs the same by allowing a look 

back of only 5 years. However, North 

Carolina rules provide the option of 

allowing a different time period, not to 

exceed 10 years, if the owner or operator 

demonstrates that it is more 

representative of normal source 

operation. In addition, North Carolina 

rules require EUSGUs to adjust 

downward the baseline emissions to 

account for reductions required under 

the North Carolina Clean Smokestack 

Act. 

With regard to the PAL adjustment 

provisions at 51.166(w)(10)(iv)(a) and 

51.165(f)(10)(iv)(A), the federal 

regulations provide the option that if the 

emissions level is equal to or greater 

than 80 percent of the PAL level, the 

reviewing authority may renew the PAL 

at the same level or it may set the PAL 

at a different level considering other 

factors per 51.166(w)(10)(iv)(b) and 

51.165(f)(iv)(B) respectively. North 

Carolina rules at subchapter 2D .0530(i) 

and .0531(h) require that the PAL be 

renewed at the same level if emissions 

are greater than or equal to 80 percent 

of the PAL. 

With regard to the remanded portions 

of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to 

recordkeeping and EPA’s December 21, 

2007, clarifications of the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ (72 FR 72607), 

North Carolina did not incorporate by 

reference all the provisions at 40 CFR 

51.166(r)(6) and 51.165(a)(6) or adopt 

the federal ‘‘reasonable possibility’’

standard. Instead, North Carolina 

adopted recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that apply to all 

modifications that use the actual-toprojected-actual applicability test. 

Therefore, the North Carolina provisions 

meet the minimum recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of the federal 

rule. Pursuant to the EPA December 21, 

2007, rulemaking on the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ standard, North Carolina is 

required to submit a notice to EPA 

within 3 years to acknowledge that its 

regulations fulfill these requirements. 

With regard to the Ozone 

Implementation NSR update, North 

Carolina incorporated by reference all 

the November 29, 2005, rule revisions 

except for the provisions at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(8), (9) and (10). North Carolina 

did not IBR 40 CFR 51.165(a)(10), which 

addresses PM10 precursors in PM10

nonattainment areas, because there are 

no PM10 nonattainment areas in North 

Carolina. North Carolina did not IBR 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(8) and (a)(9), which relate 

to the applicability of NOX as a 

precursor for ozone and offset ratios in 

nonattainment areas; however, North 

Carolina rules have equivalent 

requirements at subchapter 2D .0531(c) 

and (f). With respect to the offset ratios, 

North Carolina’s rules only address the 

offset ratio for moderate nonattainment 

areas, which is the current ‘‘highest’’

classification in the State. There is only 

one 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in 

North Carolina—the Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill area—which is classified as 

moderate nonattainment. At the time 

that any area(s) in North Carolina are 

reclassified to any level above moderate 

during a future designation process, 

North Carolina rules will have to be 

revised to address the appropriate offset 

ratios. 

In addition to incorporating the 

federal rules by reference with several 

changes, North Carolina’s rule revisions 

include two additional provisions that 

do not directly relate to the 2002 NSR 

Reform rules, including: (1) 

Incorporating by reference 40 CFR 

52.21(r)(2) to clarify the period of 

validity of approval to construct; and (2) 

requiring that all new natural gas-fired 

electrical utility generating units install 

best available control technology 

(BACT) or LAER, as appropriate. This 

second requirement was included in the 

North Carolina rules for clarity and 

consistency with restrictions on use of 

allowances imposed by an agreement 

resulting from provisions of the North 

Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act.2

After evaluation of the submittals and 

supporting documentation for revisions 

to North Carolina’s NSR regulations, 

EPA has determined that the differences 

from the federal regulations discussed 

above do not make North Carolina’s 

NSR program less stringent than the 

federal program. Therefore, EPA has 

determined that the proposed SIP 

revisions are consistent with the federal 

program requirements for the 

preparation, adoption and submittal of 

implementation plans for NSR set forth 

at 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166, and are 

therefore approvable. 

IV. What action is EPA taking today? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

changes made to North Carolina’s 

Regulations 15A NCAC 2D .0530 and 

.0531, as submitted by the North 

Carolina DENR on November 30, 2005, 

March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008, as 

revisions to the North Carolina SIP. 

V. 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 proposed 

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 proposed 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 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
52230 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Russell L. Wright, Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E8–20874 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–1003] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1 percent annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

proposed BFE modifications for the 

communities listed in the table below. 

The purpose of this notice is to seek 

general information and comment 

regarding the proposed regulatory flood 

elevations for the reach described by the 

downstream and upstream locations in 

the table below. The BFEs and modified 

BFEs are a part of the floodplain 

management measures that the 

community is required either to adopt 

or show evidence of having in effect in 

order to qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents, and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before December 8, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1003, to 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3151, or (e-mail) 

bill.blanton@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3151 or.(email) 

bill.blanton@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

Statement. This matter is not a 

rulemaking governed by the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553. FEMA publishes flood 

elevation determinations for notice and 

comment; however, they are governed 

by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 

1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and do not fall under the 

APA. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 67—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 67 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§ 67.4 [Amended] 

2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be 

amended as follows: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS