[Federal Register: April 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 65)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15683-15685]
[DOCID:fr07ap09-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0288; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-214-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900 and -900ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series
airplanes. This proposed AD would require modifying the fluid drain
path in the wing leading edge area, forward of the wing front spar and
doing all applicable related investigative and corrective actions. This
proposed AD results from a report received of leaking fuel from the
wing leading edge area at the inboard end of the number 5 leading edge
slat. We are proposing this AD to prevent flammable fluids from
accumulating in the wing leading edge and draining inboard and onto the
engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 22, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6510; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0288;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-214-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have been notified that leaking fuel from the wing leading edge
area at the inboard end of the number 5 leading edge slat was
discovered during a post-flight inspection on a Model 737 airplane with
a fuel quantity of over 2,500 lbs. Subsequent investigation found that
the leak occurred in an area of the front spar that does not have a
proper drain path and appears to have been caused by a loose retaining
nut of the slat track down stop. This led to the fuel draining onto the
engine exhaust nozzle. This condition, if not corrected, could result
in flammable fluids accumulating in the wing leading edge and draining
inboard and onto the engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a
fire.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-
1293, dated November 13, 2008 (``the service bulletin''). The service
bulletin describes procedures for modifying the fluid drain path in the
wing leading edge area, forward of the wing front spar.
    For Group 1 airplanes, the modification includes applying sealant
to the cavities between the inboard slat track ribs and leading edge
lower panels at certain slat stations in the left and right wings;
installing a flame arrestor tube through the vapor barrier rib at the
outboard leading edge strakelet box to direct fluids to the strut drain
system; applying sealant to create a form-in-place gasket at the
blowout door located under the strakelet box to prevent fluids from
leaking onto the engine exhaust nozzle; replacing the existing seal in
the fuel shut-off valve access door with a bulb seal to prevent
flammable fluid leakage onto the engine exhaust nozzle; trimming the
blowout door hinge; and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. The related investigative and corrective actions include
doing a leak test and reapplying sealant.
    For Group 2 airplanes, the modification includes removing the
parting agent and sealant at the lower leading edge access panel
immediately outboard of the fuel shutoff valve access door in the left
and right wings, and installing new parting agent and sealant; and
doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The
related investigative actions include inspecting the blowout door hinge
for trim and doing a leak test. The corrective actions include trimming
the blowout door hinge and reapplying sealant.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the(se) same type
design(s). This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 754 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                Table 1--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average
                Action                   Work hours   labor rate     Parts       Cost per        Number of U.S.-                  Fleet cost
                                                       per hour                  product      registered airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification, Group 1.................           45          $80       $1,545       $5,145  Up to 754...............  Up to $3,879,330.
Install parting agent Group 2.........           23           80         None        1,840  Up to 754...............  Up to $1,387,360.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures

the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products
identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0288; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-
214-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 22, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800,
-900 and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1293,
dated November 13, 2008.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report received of leaking fuel from
the wing leading edge area at the inboard end of the number 5
leading edge slat. We are issuing this AD to prevent flammable
fluids from accumulating in the wing leading edge and draining
inboard and onto the engine exhaust nozzle, which could result in a
fire.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Corrective Actions

    (f) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the fluid drain path in the wing leading edge area, forward of the
wing front spar, and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, by accomplishing all applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-57-1293, dated November 13, 2008. Do
all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Sam Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or
lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-7769 Filed 4-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 248 (Thursday, December 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78266-78272]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30542]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0629; FRL-9904-43-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina; Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Agreement Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 12, 2013, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR).
This submission consists of memorandum of agreements (MOAs)
establishing transportation conformity criteria and procedures related
to interagency consultation, conflict resolution, public participation
and enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures
and mitigation measures. This action streamlines the conformity process
to allow direct consultation among agencies at the Federal, state and
local levels. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 24, 2014 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 27,
2014. 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-2013-0629 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0629, 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 No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0629. 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 Air Quality Modeling and Transportation 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: Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation 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. Ms.
Sheckler's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. Background for this Action
III. EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Submittal
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve NC DENR's July 12,
2013 SIP submission, which consists of MOAs establishing transportation
conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation,
conflict resolution, public participation and enforceability of certain
transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures in the
State of North Carolina and its SIP pursuant to the sections 110 and
176 of the CAA. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving
into the North Carolina SIP the July 12, 2013, transportation
conformity MOAs.

II. Background for This Action

A. What is transportation conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
CAA to ensure that federally supported highway projects, transit
projects, and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the
purpose of the SIP. Conformity \1\ currently applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment and to areas that have been redesignated to
attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under
section 175A of the Act, for transportation-related criteria pollutants
including ozone, particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Conformity first appeared as a requirement in the CAA in the
1977 amendments (Pub. L. 95-95). Although the Act did not define
conformity, it stated that no Federal department could engage in,
support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or
permit, or approve any activity which did not conform to a SIP which
has been approved or promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1990 Amendments to the CAA expanded the scope and content of
the conformity concept by defining conformity to a SIP. Section 176(c)
of the Act defines conformity as conformity to the SIP's purpose of
eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieving
expeditious attainment of such standards. Also, the CAA provides that
no Federal activity will: (1) Cause or contribute to any new violation
of any NAAQS in any area, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any
existing violation of any standard in any area, or (3) delay timely
attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions
or other milestones in any area. The requirements of section 176(c) of
the CAA apply to all departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the
Federal government. Transportation conformity refers only to the
conformity of transportation plans, programs and projects that are
funded or approved under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (49
U.S.C. Chapter 53). EPA was required to issue criteria and procedures
for determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and
projects to a SIP pursuant to section 176(c) of the CAA. The CAA also
required the procedures to include a requirement that each state submit
a revision to its SIP to include conformity criteria and procedures.

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

    EPA promulgated the first federal transportation conformity
criteria and procedures (``Conformity Rule'') on November 24, 1993 (58
FR 62188) which was codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR
part 93. Among other things, the rule required states to address all
provisions of the conformity rule in their SIPs, frequently referred to
as ``conformity SIPs.'' Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the
conformity rule were required to be copied verbatim into the SIP. The
rule has been subsequently revised on August 7, 1995 (60 FR 40098),
August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780) November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), April
10, 2000 (65 FR 18911), and August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808).
    On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the CAA transportation
conformity provisions by streamlining the requirements for conformity
SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address and tailor only
three sections of the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40
CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 40 CFR 93.125(c). In general, states are no
longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the
other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on
August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.
    States may also choose to develop, in place of adopting federal
regulations, a MOA which establishes the roles and procedures for
transportation conformity. The MOA must include the detailed
consultation procedures developed for that particular area. The MOAs
are enforceable through the signature of all the transportation and air
quality agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and EPA.

C. How does transportation conformity work?

    The Federal or state transportation conformity rule applies to
applicable NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas in the state. The
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the state department of
transportation (DOT) (in absence of a MPO), State and local air quality
agencies, EPA and the USDOT are involved in the process of making
conformity determinations. Conformity determinations are made on
programs and plans such as transportation improvement programs (TIP),
transportation plans, and transportation projects. The projected
emissions that will result from implementation of the transportation
plans and programs are calculated and compared to the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) established in the SIP. The calculated
emissions must be equal to or smaller than the federally approved MVEB
in order for the USDOT to make a positive conformity determination with
respect to the SIP.
    Pursuant to Federal regulations, when an area is designated
nonattainment for a transportation-related NAAQS, the state is required
to submit a transportation conformity SIP one year after the effective
date of the nonattainment area (NAA) designations. See Section 40 CFR
51.390(c). Previously, North Carolina established, and EPA subsequently
approved, a transportation conformity SIP to address areas that were
designated nonattainment or previously designated nonattainment for the
carbon monoxide

(CO) and 1-hour ozone \2\ NAAQS. See 67 FR 32549 (December 27, 2002)
for EPA's rulemaking related to approval on North Carolina's
transportation conformity SIP. North Carolina's July 12, 2013, SIP
revision updates and replaces North Carolina's previously-approved
transportation conformity SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties in the Charlotte-Gastonia
Area; Durham and Wake Counties, and a portion of Granville County in
the Raleigh-Durham Area; and Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford
Counties, and a portion of Davie County in the Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point Area were previously designated nonattainment for
the 1-hour ozone standard and thus, implemented transportation
conformity for the 1-hour ozone standard. However, EPA subsequently
revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for all these areas as part of the
transition to the new 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and because these
areas had long complied with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, transportation
conformity ceased to apply in these Areas for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective January 6, 1992 (59 FR 56694), EPA designated four
counties in North Carolina as nonattainment for the CO NAAQS.
Specifically, EPA designated the following areas as nonattainment for
the CO NAAQS: (1) Durham and Wake Counties in the Raleigh-Durham Area;
(2) Forsyth County in the Winston-Salem Area; and (3) Mecklenburg
County in the Charlotte Area. Provided below in Section III(a), (c) and
(e) are more details related to transportation conformity for the
aforementioned areas for the CO NAAQS.
    On June 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated seven areas in North
Carolina as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, EPA designated the following areas as nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (1) the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock
Hill, NC-SC; (2) Fayetteville, NC; (3) Greensboro-Winston Salem-High
Point, NC; (4) Great Smoky National Park (North Carolina portion); (5)
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC; (6) Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC; and
(7) Rocky Mount, NC. Nonattainment designations became effective June
15, 2004, for the bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock-Hill, NC-SC; \3\
Great Smoky National Park; \4\ Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC; \5\ and
Rocky Mount, NC \6\ areas. As Early Action Compact (EAC) Areas,\7\
nonattainment designations were deferred for the Fayetteville, NC;
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC; and Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir,
NC areas and, because these areas met all the requirements for EAC
Areas, they were never effectively nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. As such, these EAC Areas were not required to meet
transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Provided below in Section III(a)-(f) are more details related to
transportation conformity for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock-Hill, NC-SC;
Great Smoky National Park, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC, and Rocky
Mount, NC areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area
consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union
Counties in their entireties, and a portion of Iredell County in
North Carolina, and a portion of York County in South Carolina.
    \4\ The Great Smoky National Park 1997 8-hour ozone area
consists for a portion of Haywood and Swain Counties.
    \5\ The Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 1997 8-hour ozone area
consists of Durham, Franklin, Granville, Orange, Johnston, Person
and Wake Counties, in their entireties, and a portion of Chatham
County.
    \6\ The Rocky Mount 1997 8-hour ozone area consists of Edgecombe
and Nash Counties in their entireties.
    \7\ EAC areas entered into compacts with EPA whereby the areas
agreed to reduce ozone pollution earlier than required by the CAA
and meet specific milestones, in exchange for a deferred effective
date for nonattainment designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 69 FR 23858, 23864-23869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated two areas in North Carolina
as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA
designated the following areas as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC;\8\
and (2) Hickory, NC.\9\ See 70 FR 944. Provided below in Section III(c)
and (d) are more details related to transportation conformity for the
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC; and Hickory, NC areas for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point 1997 annual
PM2.5 area consists of Davidson and Guilford Counties in
their entireties.
    \9\ The Hickory 1997 annual PM2.5 area consists of
Catawba County in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 30, 2012, EPA designated the bi-state Charlotte area
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
Provided below in Section III(a) are more details related to
transportation conformity for the bi-state Charlotte for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

III. EPA Analysis of North Carolina's Submittal

    EPA's Transportation Conformity rule requires the states to develop
their own processes and procedures which meet the criteria in 40 CFR
93.105 for interagency consultation and resolution of conflicts among
the federal, state, and local agencies. The SIP revision must include
processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, state DOT, and the
USDOT in consulting with the state and local air quality agencies and
EPA before making conformity determinations. The conformity SIP
revision must also include processes and procedures for the state and
local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of
applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTS, and the USDOT. Additionally, the
SIP revision must include provisions addressing the enforceability of
certain transportation-related control measures and mitigation
measures.
    On July 12, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through NC DENR,
submitted its ``Conformity SIP'' for the applicable transportation-
related NAAQS. Specifically, North Carolina requested EPA approval of
its Conformity SIP which included MOAs signed by the federal and state
transportation and air quality partners, and all of the MPOs in the
state subject to transportation conformity requirements. The North
Carolina Conformity SIP establishes new procedures for interagency
consultation, dispute resolution, public participation and
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and
mitigation measures, and supersedes the MOA incorporated into the SIP
on November 19, 2003. Prior to today, the MOAs in the SIP included
procedures for interagency consultation and also incorporated EPA
regulations in 40 CFR 93 Subpart A (July 1, 1997) and 62 FR 43780
(August 15, 1997) by reference. The MOAs that EPA is approving in this
action no longer incorporate the federal conformity rules by reference.
More details on the Areas that these MOAs relate to are provided below
in this Section.

a. Bi-State Charlotte Area

    Counties (or portions of counties) in the bi-state Charlotte Area
comprise the maintenance area for the CO NAAQS; the nonattainment area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and the nonattainment area for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As indicated above, Mecklenburg County in the
bi-state Charlotte Area for the CO NAAQS; and Cabarrus, Gaston,
Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union Counties in their entireties,
and a portion of Iredell County in North Carolina, and a portion of
York County in South Carolina in the bi-state Charlotte Area for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are required to implement transportation
conformity requirements. Effective July 20, 2013, EPA revoked the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the purpose of transportation conformity as part
of the transition between the implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR

30160. As such, the bi-state Charlotte Area is no longer required to
implement transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    There are 3 MPOs within the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, and a portion of the nonattainment area that is not
within the jurisdiction of a MPO. The MPOs in the bi-state Charlotte
Area include the Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO), the Cabarrus-Rowan
Urban MPO, and Gaston Urban Area MPO. The areas that are not within the
jurisdiction of a MPO are known as ``donut'' areas. The State DOT is
responsible for implementation of transportation conformity
requirements in donut areas. For the purposes of transportation
conformity requirements related to the CO NAAQS, MUMPO serves as the
lead agency for the preparation, consultation, and distribution of the
conformity determinations. For the purpose of transportation conformity
requirements related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, MUMPO, Cabarrus-
Rowan Urban MPO, Gaston Urban Area MPO and NC DOT coordinate and serve
as the lead agencies for the preparation, consultation, and
distribution of the conformity determinations for their respective
portions of the bi-state Charlotte Area. As such, the NC DENR worked
with MUMPO, Cabarrus-Rowan Urban MPO, Gaston Urban Area MPO, NC DOT,
and the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for
the Area to develop and execute MOAs to address the consultation and
other applicable transportation conformity requirements for the Area.
These MOAs are provided in the docket for today's rulemaking. Today,
EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the MOA for the MUMPO,
Cabarrus-Rowan Urban MPO, Gaston Urban Area MPO, and NC DOT into the
North Carolina SIP.
    The State of South Carolina has established conformity procedures
for the portion of York County which makes up the South Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area in its individual conformity
SIP. EPA approved South Carolina's Conformity SIP on July 28, 2009. See
74 FR 37168. North Carolina's July 2013 SIP revision updates the
transportation conformity consultation, conflict resolution and public
participation procedures, and includes provisions addressing the
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and
mitigation measures for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.

b. Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area

    Portions of Haywood and Swain Counties comprise the Great Smoky
National Park maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As
indicated above, the Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area was
required to implement transportation conformity requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a maintenance area. As such, the NC DENR
worked with the Great Smoky Mountain National Park Service, and the
other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Area
to develop and execute a MOA to address the consultation and other
applicable transportation conformity requirements for the Area. This
MOA is provided in the docket for today's rulemaking. EPA notes that
effective July 20, 2013, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked for
the purpose of transportation conformity. See 77 FR 30160.
Transportation conformity is, therefore, not currently required for the
Great Smoky Mountain National Park Area under the CAA. Today, however,
EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the MOA for the Great
Smoky Mountain National Park Area into the North Carolina SIP in the
event that the Area will be required to implement transportation
conformity requirements for a future transportation-related NAAQS.

c. Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area

    Counties (or portions of counties) in the Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point Area comprise the maintenance area for the CO NAAQS; and the
maintenance area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. As indicated
above, Forsyth County in the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area
for the CO NAAQS; and Davidson and Guilford Counties in the Greensboro-
Winston Salem-High Point Area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are
required to implement transportation conformity requirements. Also, as
mentioned above, the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area was an
EAC area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This Area was designated
nonattainment on June 15, 2004, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with a
deferred effective date. The Area met all of the EAC milestones and was
ultimately never effectively designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The Area was therefore never required to implement
transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
but was required to continue to implement transportation conformity
requirements for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area until this
requirement was removed as a result of the Area successfully meeting
the EAC milestones for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    There is one MPO, Greensboro Urban Area MPO, within the Greensboro-
Winston Salem Area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The MPOs for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Greensboro-Winston Salem Area
included the Greensboro Urban Area MPO, High Point Urban Area MPO,
Winston Salem -Forsyth's Urban Area MPO, and Burlington-Graham MPO. The
areas that are not within the jurisdiction of a MPO are known as
``donut'' areas. The State DOT is responsible for implementation of
transportation conformity requirements in donut areas. For the purposes
of transportation conformity requirements related to the CO NAAQS, the
Winston Salem-Forsyth Urban Area MPO serves as the lead agency for the
preparation, consultation, and distribution of the conformity
determinations. For the purpose of transportation conformity
requirements related to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the Greensboro
Urban Area MPO coordinates and serves as the lead agencies for the
preparation, consultation, and distribution of the conformity
determinations for the Greensboro Area.
    The NC DENR worked with the Greensboro Urban Area MPO, High Point
Urban Area MPO, Winston Salem-Forsyth's Urban Area MPO, Burlington-
Graham MPO, the NC DOT, and the other applicable transportation and air
quality partners for the Area to develop and execute MOAs to address
the consultation and other applicable transportation conformity SIP
requirements for the Area. These MOAs are provided in the docket for
today's rulemaking. North Carolina's July 2013 SIP revision updates the
transportation conformity consultation, conflict resolution and public
participation procedures, and includes provisions addressing the
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and
mitigation measures for the Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point Area.
Today, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the MOAs for the
Greensboro Area (i.e., for the Greensboro Urban Area MPO, and Winston
Salem-Forsyth's Urban Area MPO) in relation to PM2.5 and CO
into the North Carolina SIP. While transportation conformity is not
currently required for the remainder of this area under the CAA because
these areas (i.e., the High Point Urban Area

and Burlington-Graham Area) successfully met the EAC milestones for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is also proposing to approve the inclusion
of the MOAs for these areas in the event that any of these areas will
be required to implement transportation conformity requirements for a
future transportation-related NAAQS.

d. Hickory Area

    The Hickory Area is a maintenance area for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. As indicated above, the Hickory Area is
required to implement transportation conformity requirements for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as a maintenance area. As such, the NC DENR
worked with the Greater Hickory MPO, and other applicable
transportation and air quality partners for the Area to develop and
execute a MOA to address the consultation and other applicable
transportation conformity SIP requirements for the Area. This MOA is
provided in the docket for today's rulemaking. North Carolina's July
2013 SIP revision updates the transportation conformity consultation,
conflict resolution and public participation procedures and includes
provisions addressing the enforceability of certain transportation-
related control measures and mitigation measures for the Hickory Area.
Today, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the MOA for the
Greater Hickory MPO into the North Carolina SIP.

e. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area

    Counties (or portions of counties) in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill comprise a maintenance area for the CO NAAQS; and a maintenance
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Area. As indicated above,
Durham and Wake Counties in the Raleigh-Durham Area for the CO NAAQS
are required to implement transportation conformity requirements. Also
mentioned above, Durham, Franklin, Granville, Orange, Johnston, Person
and Wake Counties, in their entireties, and a portion of Chatham County
in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area were included in the maintenance
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus required to implement
transportation conformity requirements. Effective July 20, 2013, EPA
revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the purpose of transportation
conformity as part of the transition between the implementation of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30160.
As such, the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area is no longer required to
implement transportation conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    The NC DENR worked with the Burlington-Graham MPO, Durham-Chapel
Hill-Cabarrus MPO, the North Carolina Capital Area MPO, the NC DOT, and
the other applicable transportation and air quality partners for the
Area to develop and execute MOAs to address the consultation and other
applicable transportation conformity SIP requirements for the Area.
These MOAs are provided in the docket for today's rulemaking. North
Carolina's July 2013 SIP revision updates the transportation conformity
consultation, conflict resolution and public participation procedures,
and includes provisions addressing the enforceability of certain
transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures for the
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area. Today, EPA is proposing to approve the
inclusion of the MOAs for the Raleigh-Durham Area (i.e., for the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, and the North Carolina Capital Area
MPO) in relation to CO into the North Carolina SIP. While
transportation conformity is not currently required for the remainder
of this area (i.e., the Burlington-Graham Area) under the CAA, EPA is
also proposing to approve the inclusion of the MOA for the remainder of
this area in the event that the area will be required to implement
transportation conformity requirements for a future transportation-
related NAAQS.

f. Rocky Mount Area

    Edgecombe and Nash Counties comprise the Rocky Mount maintenance
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As indicated above, the Rocky
Mount Area was required to implement transportation conformity
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a maintenance area. As
such, the NC DENR worked with the Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO, and other
applicable transportation and air quality partners for the Area to
develop and execute a MOA to address the consultation and other
applicable transportation conformity SIP requirements for the Area.
This MOA is provided in the docket for today's rulemaking. North
Carolina's July 2013 SIP revision updates the transportation conformity
consultation, conflict resolution and public participation procedures
and includes provisions addressing the enforceability of certain
transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures for the
Rocky Mount Area. EPA notes that effective July 20, 2013, the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS was revoked for the purpose of transportation
conformity. See 77 FR 30160. Transportation conformity is, therefore,
not required for the Rocky Mount Urban Area under the CAA. Today,
however, EPA is proposing to approve the inclusion of the MOA for the
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO in the event that the Area will be required
to implement transportation conformity requirements for a future
transportation-related NAAQS.

g. Analysis of North Carolina's MOAs and Conformity SIP

    The State of North Carolina developed its MOAs based on the
elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c)
and included them in the SIP. As a first step, the State worked with
the existing transportation planning organization's interagency
committees that included representatives from the NC DENR; NC DOT; the
MPOs in the State; Federal Highway Administration--North Carolina
Division; Federal Transit Administration; and the Region 4 office of
EPA. The interagency committee met regularly and drafted the
consultation procedures considering elements in 40 CFR part 93.105,
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c), and integrated the local procedures
and processes into the MOAs. The resulting consultation process
developed is unique to the State of North Carolina. A public notice
announcement was issued on July 20, 1012, indicating that the MOAs were
available for public comment until August 24, 2012. No request for a
public hearing was received. The NC DENR posted the MOAs on their Web
site and provided access to the documents for review in person at the
NC DENR central office in Raleigh and seven regional offices throughout
the state. The final MOAs were issued by North Carolina on October 1,
2012, and subsequently submitted as a SIP revision to EPA on July 12,
2013, after signature from all signatories.
    EPA has evaluated this SIP revision and has determined that the
State has met the requirements of federal transportation conformity
rules as described in 40 CFR part 51, Subpart T and 40 CFR part 93,
Subpart A. NC DENR has satisfied the public participation and
comprehensive interagency consultation requirement during development
and adoption of the MOA at the local level. Therefore, EPA is approving
the MOAs as a revision to the North Carolina SIP. EPA's rule requires
the states to develop their own processes and procedures for
interagency consultation among the Federal, state, and local agencies;
resolution of conflicts; and public

participation meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP revision
must include processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, state
DOT, and US DOT in consulting with the state and local air quality
agencies and EPA before making conformity determinations. The
conformity SIP revision must also include processes and procedures for
the state and local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the
development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, and the USDOT. In
addition, the SIP revision must include provisions to address the
enforceability of certain transportation-related control measures and
mitigation measures meeting the criteria of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and
93.125(c).
    EPA has reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the CAA
as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93 and 40 CFR
51.390) governing applicable procedures for transportation conformity
and interagency consultation and has concluded that the submittal is
approvable. Details of our review are set forth in a technical support
document (TSD), which has been included in the docket for this action.
Specifically, in the TSD, we identify how the submitted procedures
satisfy our requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency
consultation with respect to the development of transportation plans
and programs, SIPs, and conformity determinations, the resolution of
conflicts, and the provision of adequate public consultation, and the
requirements under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for
enforceability of control measures and mitigation measures.

IV. Final Action

    For the reasons set forth above, EPA is taking direct final action,
pursuant to section 110 and 176 of the Act, to approve North Carolina's
July 12, 2013, transportation conformity SIP and MOAs to implement the
conformity consultation, conflict resolution and public participation
procedures, and provisions addressing the enforceability of certain
transportation-related control measures and mitigation measures in the
State of North Carolina. This action also establishes consultation
procedures for all counties in North Carolina. As a result of this
action, North Carolina's previously SIP-approved conformity procedures
for North Carolina at 67 FR 32549 (December 27, 2002), will be replaced
by the procedures submitted to EPA on July 12, 2013, and approved in
this action.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal 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 comments be filed. This rule will be effective February 24,
2014 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments
by January 27, 2014.
    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. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on February 24, 2014 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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
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 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 February 24, 2014. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 10, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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 ``North Carolina Transportation Conformity Air Quality
Implementation Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Provision                    State effective date          EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
North Carolina Transportation Conformity  July 12, 2013.............  December 26, 2013 [Insert   ..............
 Air Quality Implementation Plan.                                      citation of publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-30542 Filed 12-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P