AQ_GEN_PLNG_20230207_SIP_TC-MOA_FR 88 7903

7903 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[REG–112096–22]
RIN 1545–BQ46
Guidance Related to the Foreign Tax
Credit; Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
notice of hearing.
SUMMARY: This document provides a
notice of public hearing on proposed
regulations relating to the foreign tax
credit, including guidance with respect
to the reattribution asset rule for
purposes of allocating and apportioning
foreign taxes, the cost recovery
requirement, and the attribution rule for
withholding tax on royalty payments.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, at 10
a.m. EDT. The IRS must receive
speakers’ outlines of the topics to be
discussed at the public hearing by
Friday, February 10, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being
held by teleconference. Individuals that
have submitted an outline of testimony
and want to testify (by telephone) at the
public hearing must send an email to
[e-mail] to receive the
telephone number and access code for
the hearing. The subject line of the
email must contain the regulation
number [REG–112096–22] and the word
TESTIFY. For example, the subject line
may say: Request to TESTIFY at Hearing
for REG–112096–22. The email must
include the name(s) of the speaker(s)
and title(s) only. No outlines will be
accepted by email. Send outline
submissions electronically via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov (IRS REG–112096–
22). The email must be received by
February 10, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning §§1.901–2 and 1.903–1,
Teisha Ruggiero, (646) 259–8116,
§1.861–20, Suzanne Walsh, (202) 317–
4908; concerning submissions of
comments, the hearing, and the access
code to attend the hearing by
teleconferencing, Vivian Hayes at (202)
317–5306 (not toll-free numbers) or
[e-mail]. If emailing,
please include Attend, Testify, or
Agenda Request and [REG–112096–22]
in the email subject line.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject of the public hearing is the
notice of proposed rulemaking REG–
112096–22 that was published in the
Federal Register on Tuesday, November
22, 2022, 87 FR 71271.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3)
apply to the hearing. Persons who wish
to present oral comments telephonically
at the hearing that previously submitted
written comments by January 23, 2023,
must submit an outline on the topics to
be addressed and the amount of time to
be devoted to each topic by February 10,
2023. A period of 10 minutes is allotted
to each person for presenting oral
comments.
After receiving outlines, the IRS will
prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. The agenda will
be available via Federal eRulemaking
Portal (www.Regulations.gov) under the
title of Supporting & Related Material by
February 12, 2023. The public hearing
agenda will contain the telephone
number and access code.
Individuals who want to attend (by
telephone) the public hearing must also
send an email to [e-mail]
to receive the telephone number and
access code for the hearing. The subject
line of the email must contain the
regulation number [REG–112096–22]
and the word ATTEND. For example,
the subject line may say: Request to
ATTEND Hearing for REG–112096–22.
The email requesting to attend the
public hearing must be received by 5
p.m. EDT two (2) business days before
the date that the hearing is scheduled.
The telephonic hearing will be made
accessible to people with disabilities. To
request special assistance during the
telephonic hearing please contact the
Publications and Regulations Branch of
the Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration) by
sending an email to publichearings@
irs.gov (preferred) or by telephone at
(202) 317–5306 (not a toll-free number)
by Friday, February 10, 2023.
Any questions regarding speaking at
or attending a public hearing may also
be emailed to [e-mail].
Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate
Chief Counsel (Procedure and
Administration).
[FR Doc. 2023–02574 Filed 2–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0769; FRL–10576–
01–R4]
Air Plan Approval; NC; Transportation
Conformity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Air Quality
(DAQ) on September 24, 2021. The SIP
revisions replace previously approved
memoranda of agreement (MOAs) with
thirteen updated MOAs outlining
transportation conformity criteria and
procedures related to interagency
consultation, conflict resolution, public
participation, and enforceability of
certain transportation-related control
and mitigation measures. EPA is
proposing to determine that North
Carolina’s September 24, 2021, SIP
revisions are consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 9, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2021–0769 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7904 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
1 In general, transportation conformity does not
apply for areas that have completed the entirety of
the required maintenance period (i.e., typically 20
years after redesignation).
2 See ‘‘Guidance for Developing Transportation
Conformity State Implementation Plans (SIPs)’’ U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA–420–B–09–
001 (January 2009). Available at: https://
nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1002W5B.PDF?
Dockey=P1002W5B.PDF.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
The telephone number is (404) 562–
9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached
via electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. What is transportation conformity?
Transportation conformity is required
under section 176(c) of the CAA and is
a process that ensures federally-
supported transportation activities are
consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the
purposes of the SIP. Examples of
transportation activities include
federally-supported highway projects,
transit projects, transportation plans,
and transportation improvement
projects (TIPs). Transportation
conformity applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment for
transportation-related national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) (i.e.,
ozone, particulate matter (e.g., PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2)) and to certain
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment of a transportation-related
NAAQS.1
Pursuant to CAA section 176(c),
conformity means conformity to a SIP’s
purpose of eliminating or reducing the
severity and number of violations of the
NAAQS and achieving expeditious
attainment of such standards, and that
no federal or federally-supported
activity under section 176(c)(1) 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).
Pursuant to section 176(c) of the CAA,
EPA issues criteria and procedures for
determining conformity of
transportation plans, programs, and
projects to a SIP. One of the
requirements is 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 (see 58 FR 62188),
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. Since then, the
rule has been revised on August 7, 1995
(60 FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60
FR 57179), August 15, 1997 (62 FR
43780), April 10, 2000 (65 FR 18911),
August 6, 2002 (67 FR 50808), and
January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4438).
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.
A transportation conformity SIP can
be adopted as a state rule, a
memorandum of understanding (MOU),
or a memorandum of agreement (MOA).
The MOA/MOU must establish the roles
and procedures for transportation
conformity and 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 EPA and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT)
which consists of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). States
may use an MOU or MOA as long as it
meets the following requirements: ‘‘(1) it
is fully enforceable under state law
against all parties involved in
interagency consultation and in
approving, adopting and implementing
transportation projects, TIPs, or
transportation plans, (2) the state
submits it to EPA for inclusion into the
SIP, and (3) it has been signed by all
agencies covered by the conformity rule
...’’2
C. How does transportation conformity
work?
The transportation conformity rule
applies to certain NAAQS
nonattainment and maintenance areas
in the state. The Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), the state
department of transportation (DOT) (in
absence of an 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 a 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 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 within
one year of the effective date of the
nonattainment area designations. See 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 CO and 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See
67 FR 32549 (December 27, 2002) for
EPA’s rulemaking approving North
Carolina’s transportation conformity
SIP. North Carolina subsequently
submitted a SIP revision on July 12,
2013, to update and replace North
Carolina’s previously approved
transportation conformity SIP. EPA
approved this revision on December 26,
2013. See 78 FR 78266.
D. The South Coast II Decision
On February 16, 2018, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v.
EPA (‘‘South Coast II,’’ 882 F.3d 1138)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7905 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
that affected the process for making
transportation conformity decisions in
areas that were either nonattainment or
maintenance for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The case revolved around a
challenge to EPA’s final rule
establishing implementation
requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and revoking the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, known as the 2008
ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule.
See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). As a
result of this rule, areas that were
nonattainment or maintenance for the
1997 ozone NAAQS were no longer
required to implement transportation
conformity requirements for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. In South Coast II,
multiple environmental interest groups
challenged EPA’s 2008 ozone NAAQS
SIP Requirements Rule. The Court
vacated portions of EPA’s 2008 ozone
NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule, but
upheld EPA’s revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
The Court decision referred to the
1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or
maintenance areas that were designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
as ‘‘orphan areas.’’ The decision stated
that transportation conformity still
applies for the revoked 1997 ozone
NAAQS in these orphan areas. For areas
that were nonattainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS at the time it was
revoked, the court stated that
transportation conformity applies as an
anti-backsliding measure. See South
Coast II, 882 F.3d at 1149. For areas that
were maintenance for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS at the time it was revoked, the
court stated that transportation
conformity applies based on the court’s
interpretation of CAA section
176(c)(5)(B). See id. at 1155.
Based on the Agency’s review of the
court decision, EPA has concluded that
the decision does not affect
transportation conformity requirements
for areas originally designated
nonattainment for the more stringent
2008 ozone NAAQS (see 77 FR 30160,
May 21, 2012), or areas designated
nonattainment for the more stringent
2015 ozone NAAQS (see 83 FR 25776,
June 4, 2018). However, as a result of
this court decision, the previous 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment
areas are required to implement
transportation conformity. These areas
are as follows for North Carolina: (1) the
bi-state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
NC–SC; (2) Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point, NC; (3) Great Smoky
National Park (North Carolina portion);
(4) Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC; (5)
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC; and
(6) Rocky Mount, NC.
II. EPA Analysis of North Carolina’s
Submittals
CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) and 40 CFR
51.390(b) require states to develop
conformity SIPs that address three
specific provisions of federal
regulations. First, EPA’s transportation
conformity rule requires 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
consultation 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. Second, 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) states that conformity
SIPs must require written commitments
to control measures to be obtained prior
to a conformity determination if those
measures are not included in an MPO’s
transportation plan and TIP. This rule
also requires that such commitments are
fulfilled. Finally, 40 CFR 93.125(c)
states that conformity SIPs must require
that written commitments to mitigation
measures must be obtained prior to a
project-level conformity determination,
and that the project sponsors comply
with these commitments.
On July 12, 2013, the State of North
Carolina, through DAQ, 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. EPA approved
these MOAs into the North Carolina SIP
on December 26, 2013. See 78 FR 78266.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
conformity SIP revisions add new
interagency partners and MPOs,
establish new procedures for
interagency consultation, dispute
resolution, public participation and
enforceability of certain transportation-
related control measures and mitigation
measures, and supersede the MOAs
incorporated into the SIP on December
26, 2013. For a list of MPOs for which
North Carolina has established MOAs in
the September 24, 2021, submission, see
Table 1, below. Table 1 also includes a
list of the areas and/or counties which
are covered under the updated MOAs.
TABLE 1—MOA ADMINISTRATORS AND COVERED AREAS
MOA administrator Covered areas
Burlington-Graham MPO .................................... Alamance County and portions of Guilford and Orange Counties.
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO ....................................... Cabarrus and Rowan Counties.
Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Or-
ganization.
Charlotte Urbanized Area which includes Charlotte and the remainder of Mecklenburg County
plus that area beyond the existing urbanized area boundary of Iredell, Mecklenburg, and
Union Counties that is expected to become urban within a twenty-year planning period.
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO .................... Durham County, the portion of Orange County that contains the towns of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and Northeast Chatham County.
Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO ......................... Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln Counties.
Greater Hickory MPO ......................................... Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties.
Greensboro Urban Area MPO ............................ City of Greensboro, the majority of unincorporated Guilford County, and the towns of Oak
Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, and Summerfield.
High Point Urban Area MPO .............................. Archdale, Denton, High Point, Jamestown, Lexington, Thomasville, Trinity, Wallburg, and por-
tions of Davidson County, Forsyth County and Randolph County.
North Carolina Capital Area MPO ...................... Wake County and parts of Franklin, Granville, Harnett, and Johnston Counties.
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO .......................... City of Rocky Mount, Towns of Nashville and Sharpsburg, and portions of Edgecombe and
Nash Counties.
Winston-Salem-Forsyth Union Area MPO .......... Portions of Forsyth, Davidson, Davie, and Stokes Counties.
Rural (counties not covered by MPO, adminis-
tered by North Carolina DOT).
Person County.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7906 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
3 Person County is the only county subject to
transportation conformity requirements per the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that does not have an
MPO responsible for it.
4 Separate to North Carolina, the state of South
Carolina has established conformity procedures for
York County, which makes up the South Carolina
portion of the Charlotte bi-state Area, in its
individual conformity SIP. EPA approved South
Carolina’s Conformity SIP on July 28, 2009. See 74
FR 37168.
5 On December 16, 2015, EPA sent a letter to
CRTPO informing it that its transportation
conformity obligations in Mecklenburg County for
the CO NAAQS ceased to apply after September 18,
2015, because the 20-year maintenance period had
been reached and North Carolina did not extend the
maintenance period beyond it. A copy of this letter
is provided in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
TABLE 1—MOA ADMINISTRATORS AND COVERED AREAS—Continued
MOA administrator Covered areas
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (admin-
istered by NPS).
Portions of Haywood and Swain Counties.
Table 2, below, identifies the
applicable NAAQS for which each
planning agency is required to
implement transportation conformity,
and therefore, establish interagency
consultation procedures. As stated
above, the MOAs are the documents
which establish each area’s interagency
consultation procedures.
TABLE 2—MOA ADMINISTRATORS AND THE APPLICABLE NAAQS FOR TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY
MOA administrator Applicable NAAQS
Burlington-Graham MPO .................................... 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO ....................................... 1997 8-hour ozone, 2008 8-hour ozone, and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Or-
ganization.
1971 CO, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO .................... 1971 CO and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO ......................... 1997 8-hour ozone and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Greater Hickory MPO ......................................... 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Greensboro Urban Area MPO ............................ 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
High Point Urban Area MPO .............................. 1971 CO and 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
North Carolina Capital Area MPO ...................... 1971 CO and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO .......................... 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Winston-Salem-Forsyth Urban Area MPO ......... 1971 CO and 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Rural (counties not covered by MPO, adminis-
tered by North Carolina DOT)3.
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (admin-
istered by NPS).
1997-hour ozone NAAQS.
Aside from some minor language edits
and clarifications, each updated MOA
makes changes to address federal
transportation conformity requirements.
Details on EPA’s analysis of each
updated MOA and its reasoning for
proposing to approve them is presented
in the sections below.
A. Bi-State Charlotte Area
There are three MPOs within the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte Area. These MPOs are:
•Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CRMPO);
•Charlotte Regional Transportation
Planning Organization (CRTPO); and
•Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(GCLMPO).
Several counties (or portions of
counties) in the bi-state Charlotte Area
comprise the maintenance area for the
CO NAAQS, as well as the maintenance
areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Based on the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, Cabarrus, Cleveland,
Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Mecklenburg,
Rowan, and Union Counties in North
Carolina, and a portion of York County
in South Carolina,4 are required to
implement transportation conformity
requirements.5 DAQ worked with
CRMPO, CRTPO, GLMPO, NC DOT, and
the other applicable transportation and
air quality partners for the bi-state
Charlotte Area to develop and execute
updated MOAs to address the
consultation and other applicable
transportation conformity requirements
for the Area. These MOAs are provided
in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
SIP revisions, through the MOAs,
update the MOA definitions, party
duties section, conformity analysis
results and reporting section, and the
modifications of agreement section. The
MOAs for MPOs in the bi-state Charlotte
Area were primarily updated to make
minor non-substantive changes such as
minor language edits, renumbering
changes throughout the MOAs, one
change in a timing provision, and the
removal of one section. Additionally,
the September 24, 2021, SIP revisions
include several other changes such as
definition changes, and a few new
clauses.
The bulk of the changes in the
September 24, 2021, SIP revisions
concern minor language edits,
clarifications, the correction of a
typographical error, and the removal of
an unnecessary section. For example,
one language edit changes the word
‘‘under’’ to ‘‘pursuant to.’’ An example
of clarifying edits made in the MOAs for
the bi-state Charlotte Area was to update
the names and abbreviations of the
involved state and local agencies to
their current names throughout the
MOAs. Additionally, the MOAs for the
bi-state Charlotte Area included updates
to the format for statutes and
regulations, for example changing
‘‘North Carolina Administrative Code
(hereinafter, ‘N.C.A.C.’), Subchapter 2D’’
to ‘‘North Carolina Administrative Code
(hereinafter, ‘NCAC’), Subchapter 2D.’’
One other edit made in all the MOAs is
to clarify the timing provision for the
Interagency Consultation Conformity
Determination Meeting, to be more
explicit that the meeting must take place
prior to a conformity determination
being made. Previously, the description
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7907 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
6 Long Range Transportation Plan was defined as
‘‘. . . the official intermodal metropolitan
transportation plan that is developed through the
metropolitan planning process for the metropolitan
planning area, developed pursuant to 23 CFR part
450.’’
7 The previous definition in the MOA defined
STIP as, ‘‘. . . a staged, multi-year, statewide,
intermodal program of transportation projects,
which consistent with the statewide transportation
plan and planning processes.’’
8 The MOA has updated the definition of STIP to,
‘‘. . . a statewide, prioritized listing/program of
transportation projects that is consistent with the
long-range statewide transportation plan, TIPs, and
required for projects to be eligible for funding
pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C.
chapter 53.’’
of the meeting timing was unclear, so
the edits require the meeting to take
place at least nine months before a
conformity determination is needed.
The updates for the MOAs for the bi-
state Charlotte Area also fix a
typographical error in clause 6.3.1.5
when referencing a specific regulation
provision. Lastly, the MOAs for the bi-
state Charlotte Area remove the
‘‘Termination of Agreement’’ section.
Further minor, non-substantive changes
include adding the term ‘‘MOA’’ to refer
to the Memorandum of Agreement
throughout the document, basic word
preference changes, grammatical
changes, and necessary renumbering of
sections to incorporate the addition or
removal of provisions, which are further
discussed below.
The MOAs also include several
changes to the definitions sections of
the MOAs, including the modification
of two definitions and the addition of
another. The MOAs all replaced the
definition of ‘‘Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP)’’ with
‘‘Metropolitan Transportation Plan
(MTP).’’6 The definition for MTP in the
new MOAs is, ‘‘. . . the official
multimodal transportation plan
addressing no less than a 20-year
planning horizon that the MPO
develops, adopts, and updates through
the metropolitan transportation
process.’’ The definition for MTP is
nearly identical to the definition for
LRTP, with the one difference being the
description as to how the plan is
developed. The LRTP definition stated
that it was developed through the
‘‘statewide transportation planning
process’’ while the MTP definition
states that ‘‘the MPO develops, adopts,
and updates through the metropolitan
transportation planning process.’’ The
MTP definition comes from 23 CFR part
450, titled ‘‘Planning Assistance and
Standards.’’ 40 CFR part 93 states that
transportation conformity
determinations are required for the
adoption, acceptance, approval, or
support of transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs
(TIPs), and their amendments,
developed pursuant to 23 CFR part 50.
See 40 CFR 93.102. Since transportation
plans are developed pursuant to the
requirements outlined in 23 CFR part
450, EPA preliminarily agrees with this
change. North Carolina replaces all
references to the LRTP with MTP
throughout the MOAs for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. Additionally, the MOA
updates modify the definition of
‘‘Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).’’78 The updated
definition of STIP is identical to the
definition in 23 CFR part 450. Finally,
North Carolina also adds a definition for
‘‘Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)’’ in the MOAs for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. Transportation
conformity requires that federally-
supported transportation activities, such
as TIPs, are consistent with the purpose
of the SIP. As transportation conformity
includes TIPs, EPA preliminarily finds
the addition of this definition to each
MOA acceptable.
North Carolina also added several
new clauses in each MOA for the bi-
state Charlotte Area. First, DAQ adds
clause 2.1.6 in the ‘‘MPO Duties’’ sub-
section, under the ‘‘Duties of the
Parties’’ section, requiring that the:
MPO, NCDOT, or its designee, shall
conduct project-level conformity analysis for
MPO-sponsored projects as part of the NEPA
process for FHWA/FTA projects located in
the MPO boundary. The MPO does not have
to make project-level conformity
determinations.
40 CFR part 93.105 and 40 CFR part
93.122(a) require the MPOs conduct an
analysis for all FHWA/FTA projects
proposed in transportation plans, TIPs,
or other regionally significant projects.
This clause was added to meet this
requirement. DAQ also adds a clause
and sub-clauses to the ‘‘Modifications of
Agreement’’ section. The clause and its
corresponding sub-clauses allow NC
DEQ to make administrative
amendments as necessary to preserve
the accuracy and integrity of the MOAs.
The sub-clauses define what constitutes
an administrative amendment. These
modifications make this section more
stringent by limiting acceptable
amendments to the following:
typographical errors, legal citations to
accurately account for any
reorganization of laws or regulations,
and public information changes, such as
the renaming of an organization.
Further, EPA preliminarily finds these
modifications acceptable as any
amendments will still have to go
through the SIP process to modify the
transportation conformity SIP.
DAQ has also modified several
clauses in each MOA. A clause DAQ
modifies in each MOA is 2.1.13 in the
‘‘MPO Duties’’ sub-section under the
‘‘Duties of the Parties’’ section. This
clause now requires that the applicable
MPO or MPO designee submit a request
to NC DEQ or its designee for written
emissions modeling results required for
conformity determinations instead of for
emission factors. Further, the change
also requires the MPO, or its designee,
to provide vehicle speed, vehicle miles
travelled, and other input data
necessary to generate emissions
modeling results. Emissions modeling is
a more comprehensive way to
characterize emissions resulting from
transportation conformity projects than
simply using emissions factors because
it accounts for more variables, such as
meteorology. 40 CFR 93.105(c) requires
that the agencies subject to an MOA
evaluate and choose a model for
regional emissions analyses, and 40 CFR
93.122 outlines how these models
should be designed. Other provisions
referring to emissions factors previously
in the MOAs are revised to refer to
emissions modeling results instead. For
example, subsection 7.1.2 in each MOA
specifies that the conformity analysis
reports must include the mobile model
inputs and outputs used to develop the
emissions modeling results. One last
clause that is modified in each MOA is
2.2.11, which is in the ‘‘NCDEQ Duties’’
sub-section, also under the ‘‘Duties of
the Parties’’ section. This clause
requires NC DEQ to consult and review
project narratives to determine if a
conformity project is an air quality
concern pursuant to 40 CFR part 93.
Previously, it only required a review of
project narratives to determine if the
conformity project had any particulate
matter air quality concerns. The
modification to the clause makes it more
stringent because it is now not limited
to particulate matter air quality
concerns.
EPA has reviewed the procedures and
updates provided in the MOAs and has
preliminarily determined that they are
consistent with the CAA and the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40
CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the inclusion of
the updated MOAs for the CRMPO,
CRTPO, and GLMPO, relating to the bi-
state Charlotte Area into the North
Carolina SIP.
B. Great Smoky Mountain National Park
Area
Portions of Haywood and Swain
Counties comprise the Great Smoky
National Park maintenance area for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7908 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
9 The previous definition in the MOA defined
STIP as, ‘‘. . . a staged, multi-year, statewide,
intermodal program of transportation projects,
which consistent with the statewide transportation
plan and planning processes.’’
10 The MOA has updated the definition of STIP
to, ‘‘. . . a statewide, prioritized listing/program of
transportation projects that is consistent with the
long-range statewide transportation plan, TIPs, and
required for projects to be eligible for funding
pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C.
chapter 53.’’
11 The previous definition in the MOA defined
TIP as a ‘‘Transportation Improvement Program
developed by FHWA–EFLHD in coordination with
NPS.’’
12 The MOA has updated the definition of TIP to,
‘‘. . . a prioritized listing/program of transportation
projects that are developed by FHWA–EFLHD in
coordination with the NPS and required for projects
to be eligible for funding pursuant to Title 23 U.S.C.
and 49 U.S.C. chapter 53.’’
13 The Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point
Area was an Early Action Compact (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 until this requirement was
removed as a result of the area successfully meeting
the EAC milestones for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
14 Transportation conformity requirements are no
longer applicable to the Davidson and Guilford
Counties 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas.
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As
indicated above, the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park Area is
required to implement transportation
conformity requirements for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS as a maintenance
area. As such, DAQ worked with the
National Park Service, NC DOT, and the
other applicable transportation and air
quality partners for the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park Area to develop
and execute an updated MOA to address
the consultation and other applicable
transportation conformity requirements
for the area. This MOA is provided in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
The bulk of the changes in the
September 24, 2021, SIP revisions
concern minor language edits,
clarifications, and a correction of a
typographical error. For example, one
language edit changes the word ‘‘under’’
to ‘‘pursuant to.’’ An example of
clarifying edits to the Great Smoky
Mountains MOA was to update the
names and abbreviations of the involved
state and local agencies to their current
names throughout the MOA.
Additionally, the format for statues and
regulations in the MOA have been
revised, for example changing ‘‘49
U.S.C., 40 CFR 93.101’’ to ‘‘49 U.S.C., 40
CFR 93.101’’ and changing, ‘‘40 CFR
93.126, .127, and .128’’ to ‘‘40 CFR
93.126, 93.127, and 93.128.’’ The MOA
was also updated to fix a typographical
error in clause 3.2.2.5 when referencing
a specific regulation provision. Further
minor, non-substantive changes
throughout the document include basic
word preference changes, grammatical
changes, and the necessary renumbering
of sections to incorporate the addition of
a clause.
The updates to the MOA also include
several other changes, including the
modification of two definitions, the
addition of one clause, and the
modification of one section. First, the
MOA updates modify the definition of
‘‘Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).’’910 The updated
definition of STIP is identical to the
definition in 23 CFR part 450. The
definition of ‘‘Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP)’’ has also
been modified in the MOA.11 12 This
definition is similar to the one for TIP
found in 23 CFR part 450. As explained
in the previous section, since
transportation plans are developed
pursuant to the requirements outlined
in 23 CFR part 450, EPA finds these
changes acceptable. The updates also
include adding clause 4.1.2 to the
‘‘Conformity Analysis Results and
Reporting’’ Section, which states that
the conformity analysis should include,
‘‘Mobile model inputs and outputs
needed to develop road network
emissions modeling results . . .’’ As all
the parties involved are required to
evaluate and choose models and the
associated assumptions for these models
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i), EPA
preliminarily finds the addition of this
clause requiring the conformity analysis
report to include the mobile model
inputs and outputs acceptable and
helpful. Finally, the ‘‘Modifications and
Renewal of Agreement’’ section has
been heavily modified in the MOA. The
modifications to this section of the
Greater Smoky Mountain Area MOA are
identical to the changes made in the
‘‘Modifications of Agreement’’ section
for the bi-state Charlotte MPOs. EPA
finds these changes acceptable for the
same reasons described in Section II.A.
EPA has reviewed the procedures and
updates provided in the MOA and has
preliminarily determined that it is
consistent with the CAA and the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and CFR
part 93. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve the inclusion of the updated
MOA for the Great Smoky Mountain
Area into the North Carolina SIP.
C. Greensboro-Winston Salem-High
Point Area
There are four MPOs within the
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point
Area. These MPOs are:
•Burlington-Graham Metropolitan
Planning Organization (BGMPO);
•Greensboro Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(GMPO);
•High Point Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(HPMPO); and
•Winston-Salem-Forsyth Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(WSFUA).
Several counties (or portions of
counties) in the Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point Area comprise the
maintenance area for the CO NAAQS,
the previous maintenance area for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.13 The Burlington-
Graham MPO is comprised of Alamance
County and portions of Guilford and
Orange Counties for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas. The
Greensboro Urban MPO is comprised of
the City of Greensboro, the majority of
unincorporated Guilford County, and
the towns of Oak Ridge, Pleasant
Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, and
Summerfield for the annual 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS maintenance areas. The High
Point Urban MPO is comprised of
Archdale, Denton, High Point,
Jamestown, Lexington, Thomasville,
Trinity, and Wallburg Counties, as well
as portions of Davidson, Forsyth and
Randolph Counties for the CO and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance areas.
Lastly, the Winston-Salem Urban MPO
is comprised of portions of Forsyth,
Davidson, Davie and Stokes Counties for
the CO NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
maintenance areas. Although no longer
required, DAQ worked with the
BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, WSFUA, NC
DOT, and the other applicable
transportation and air quality partners
for the Area to develop and execute
updated MOAs to address the
consultation and other applicable
transportation conformity requirements
such as 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40
CFR 93.125(c) for the Area.14 These
MOAs are provided in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
SIP revisions for the MOAs associated
with the Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point Area, make the same changes
to these MOAs as the bi-state Charlotte
MOAs. As such, North Carolina’s
September 24, 2021, SIP revisions
update the MOA definitions, party
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7909 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
15 NC DOT administers transportation conformity
requirements for Person County in accordance with
the MOA for rural areas. See Section II.G, below.
16 The end of the second maintenance plan has
been reached for CO for Durham and Wake
Counties, so transportation conformity is no longer
required in relation to the CO NAAQS for the
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area.
17 The Rocky Mount Area MOA uses a slightly
different definition for TIP than the bi-state
Charlotte Area MOAs. It defines it as, ‘‘. . . a
staged, multi-year, intermodal program of
transportation projects covering a metropolitan
planning area which is consistent with the MTP
and was developed pursuant to 23 CFR, Part 450.’’
Outside of this difference, the rest of the revisions
are the same as the MOAs for the MPOs in the bi-
State Charlotte Area. As transportation conformity
requires that federally-supported transportation
activities, such as TIPs, are consistent with the
purposes of the SIP pursuant to 23 CFR, Part 450,
this definition is acceptable.
18 See id.
duties section, conformity analysis
results and reporting section, and the
‘‘Modifications of Agreement’’ section.
Since the updates to the MOAs in the
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point
Area are the same as those to the MOAs
for the bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA has
preliminarily determined that these
modifications are consistent with the
CAA and the applicable transportation
conformity requirements at 40 CFR
51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the
reasons described in Section II.A.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the inclusion of the updated MOAs for
the BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, and
WSFUA, relating to the Greensboro-
Winston Salem-High Point Area, into
the North Carolina SIP.
D. Hickory Area
The Hickory Area consists of one
MPO, the Greater Hickory MPO, which
is comprised of Alexander, Burke,
Caldwell, and Catawba Counties. The
Hickory Area is a maintenance area for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. As indicated
above, the Hickory Area was previously
required to implement transportation
conformity requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as a maintenance area.
Although no longer required, DAQ
worked with the Greater Hickory MPO,
and other applicable transportation and
air quality partners for the Hickory Area
to develop and execute an updated
MOA to address the consultation and
other applicable transportation
conformity requirements such as 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for
the Area. This MOA is provided in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
SIP revisions make the same changes to
the Greater Hickory MOA as those made
to the MOAs for the bi-State Charlotte
Area. As such, these changes update the
MOA definitions, party duties section,
conformity analysis results and
reporting section, and the Modifications
of Agreement section. Since the updates
to the Greater Hickory MOA are the
same as those made to the MOAs for the
bi-State Charlotte Area, EPA has
preliminarily determined that it is
consistent with the CAA and the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40
CFR part 93 for the reasons described in
Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the inclusion of
the updated MOA for the Greater
Hickory MPO, relating to the Hickory
Area, into the North Carolina SIP.
E. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area
There are two MPOs within the
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill Area.
These MPOs are:
•Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO;
and
•North Carolina Capital Area MPO.
Several counties (or portions of
counties) in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill Area comprise a maintenance area
for the CO NAAQS and a maintenance
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO
consists of Durham County; the portion
of Orange County that contains the
towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
Hillsborough; and Northeast Chatham
County. The North Carolina Capital
Area MPO consists of Franklin,
Granville, Harnett, Johnston, and Wake
Counties. Durham, Franklin, Granville,
Orange, Johnston, Person,15 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,
are required to implement
transportation conformity
requirements.16
DAQ worked with the Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro MPO, the North Carolina
Capital Area MPO, NC DOT, and the
other applicable transportation and air
quality partners for the Area to develop
and execute updated MOAs to address
the consultation and other applicable
transportation conformity SIP
requirements such as 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c) for
the Area. These MOAs are provided in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
SIP revisions make the same changes to
the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area
MOAs as the bi-State Charlotte MOAs.
As such, North Carolina’s September 24,
2021, SIP revisions update the MOA
definitions, party duties section,
conformity analysis results and
reporting section, and the Modifications
of Agreement section. Since the updates
to the MOAs in the Raleigh-Durham-
Chapel Hill Area are the same as those
to the MOAs in the bi-State Charlotte
Area, EPA has preliminarily determined
that these are consistent with the CAA
and the applicable transportation
conformity requirements at 40 CFR
51.390 and 40 CFR part 93 for the
reasons described in Section II.A.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the inclusion of the updated MOAs for
the Durham-Chapel Hill-Cabarrus MPO
and North Carolina Capital Area MPO,
relating to the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill Area, into the North Carolina SIP.
F. Rocky Mount Area
There is one MPO in the Rocky Mount
Area, the Rocky Mount Urban Area
MPO, which is comprised of the City of
Rocky Mount, the towns of Nashville
and Sharpsburg, and portions of
Edgecombe and Nash Counties.
Edgecombe and Nash Counties are in
maintenance for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. DAQ worked with the Rocky
Mount Urban Area MPO and other
applicable transportation and air quality
partners for the Rocky Mount Area to
develop and execute an updated MOA
to address the consultation and other
applicable transportation conformity
SIP requirements for the Area. This
MOA is provided in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
SIP revisions make the same changes to
the Rocky Mount Area MOA as those
made to the MOAs for the bi-state
Charlotte Area with the exception of the
definition for TIP.17 As such, these
changes update the MOA definitions,
party duties section, conformity analysis
results and reporting section, and the
Modifications of Agreement section.
Since the updates to the Rocky Mount
MOA are the same as those to the MOAs
in the bi-state Charlotte Area,18 EPA has
preliminarily determined that it is
consistent with the CAA and the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40
CFR part 93 for the reasons described in
Section II.A. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the inclusion of
the updated MOA for the Rocky Mount
Area into the North Carolina SIP.
G. Rural Area
NC DOT is the responsible party for
interagency consultation and
compliance with transportation
conformity requirements if no MPO
exists in an area that is subject to 40
CFR part 93. Currently, Person County
is subject to transportation conformity
per the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
does not have an MPO responsible for
it. Therefore, NC DOT administers
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
7910 Federal Register /Vol. 88, No. 25/Tuesday, February 7, 2023/Proposed Rules
transportation conformity requirements
for this area in accordance with the
MOA for rural areas. DAQ worked with
NC DOT and other applicable
transportation and air quality partners
for the area to develop and execute an
updated MOA to address the
consultation and other applicable
transportation conformity SIP
requirements such as 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 40 CFR 93.125(c).
This MOA is provided in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
North Carolina’s September 24, 2021,
SIP revisions for the Rural Area MOA
make many of the same changes as the
bi-State Charlotte MOAs and the Great
Smoky Mountain Area MOA. With
respect to ‘‘Duties of the Parties’’
section, the Interagency Consultation
Conformity Determination Meeting
timing clarification, a typographical
error in clause 6.3.1.5, the removal of
the ‘‘Termination of Agreement’’
section, and the Modifications of
Agreement section, the Rural Area MOA
makes the same changes as those made
in the bi-state Charlotte MOAs. With
respect to the definitions for
‘‘Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP)’’ and ‘‘Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)’’, the
Rural Area MOA makes the same
changes as the Great Smoky Mountain
National Park Area MOA. EPA finds
these changes acceptable of the same
reasons outlined in Sections II.A and
II.B. Further minor, non-substantive
changes throughout the document
include basic word preference changes,
grammatical changes, and the necessary
renumbering of sections to incorporate
the addition of a clause.
EPA has reviewed the procedures and
updates provided in the MOA and has
preliminarily determined that it is
consistent with the CAA and the
applicable transportation conformity
requirements at 40 CFR 51.390 and 40
CFR part 93. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the inclusion of
the updated MOA for the Rural Area
into the North Carolina SIP.
III. Proposed Actions
For the reasons discussed above, EPA
is proposing to approve North Carolina’s
September 24, 2021, SIP revisions.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve the replacement of
Transportation Conformity MOAs for
the Burlington-Graham MPO, Cabarrus-
Rowan MPO, Charlotte Regional
Transportation Planning Organization,
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO,
Gaston-Cleveland-Lincoln MPO, Greater
Hickory MPO, Greensboro Urban Area
MPO, High Point Urban Area MPO,
North Carolina Capital Area MPO,
Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO, the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
(NPS), and Rural Area (NC DOT). EPA
is proposing to find that these actions
are consistent with section 110 and 176
of the CAA and will not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
IV. 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.
See 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 they meet the criteria of the
CAA. These actions merely propose to
approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
these proposed actions:
•Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
•Do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
•Are certified as not having
significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
•Do 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);
•Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
•Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
•Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
•Are 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
•Do 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).
The SIP revisions are not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rules do
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Carbon monoxide,
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: January 31, 2023.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023–02488 Filed 2–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 87, and 88
[WT Docket No. 22–323; FCC 22–101; FR
ID 122915]
Spectrum Rules and Policies for the
Operation of Unmanned Aircraft
Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’
or ‘‘Commission’’) seeks comment on
rules to promote access by unmanned
aircraft system (UAS) operators to
licensed spectrum to support UAS
operations. First, this document seeks
comment on service rules for the 5030–
5091 MHz band that will provide UAS
operators with access to licensed
spectrum with the reliability necessary
to support safety-critical UAS
command-and-control communications
links. Second, due to the increasing
interest in operating UAS using existing
terrestrial flexible-use spectrum
networks, this document seeks comment
on whether the Commission’s current
rules are adequate to ensure co-
existence of terrestrial mobile
operations and UAS use or whether
changes to these rules are necessary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:27 Feb 06, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM 07FEP1ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS