56418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Using supplied air from the surface 

versus using air from cylinders stored 

underground; or delivering surfacesupplied air through a borehole directly 

into a built-in-place refuge versus 

compressed air lines run through the 

mine. 

3. Discuss options for piping air over 

several miles through a mine to provide 

a clean air supply and sufficient air 

pressure to a built-in-place refuge when 

a borehole directly into the refuge is 

unavailable. What issues remain to be 

addressed for the protection of piping 

used to provide compressed air to a 

refuge? 

4. What are the risks and benefits to 

miners’ safety, if any, if a constant air 

supply from the surface is provided to 

a refuge and exhausted from the refuge 

into the mine, as opposed to exhausting 

to the surface? 

5. What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of using SCBAs with 

refill stations as compared to using 

SCSRs with caches in escapeways? 

6. Discuss and describe new and 

improved technology for built-in-place 

refuges’ designs. What is the impact of 

these designs on the cost of built-inplace refuges? For example, would a 

moveable wall or other modular design 

make the use of a built-in-place refuge 

more feasible and economical? 

B. Miners’ Ability To Communicate 

During Escape 

Miners’ ability to communicate with 

each other can be critical during mine 

emergencies. Under existing rules, 

miners use self-contained self-rescue 

(SCSR) escape respirators that have a 

mouthpiece. A self-contained breathing 

apparatus (SCBA) has a full-face 

respirator mask. Miners must remove 

the mouthpiece of an SCSR to speak, or 

remove the full-face respirator mask of 

an SCBA to communicate clearly. These 

actions expose miners to deadly gases in 

the mine atmosphere. 

7. Discuss the challenges associated 

with providing two-way communication 

when using escape SCBAs or SCSRs. 

What technologies, such as voice 

amplifiers or wireless communication 

systems, are available for escape SCBAs 

or SCSRs that can enhance voice 

communication among miners? 

8. Discuss how this technology can be 

integrated with a mine’s two-way postaccident communication system. 

MSHA will accept written responses, 

data, and information for the record 

from any interested party, including 

those not participating in the public 

meeting, through November 16, 2015. 

Joseph A. Main, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23448 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0904; FRL–9934–26– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; TN; Reasonably 

Available Control Measures and 

Redesignation for the TN Portion of the 

Chattanooga 1997 Annual PM2.5

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing two separate 

but related actions pertaining to the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

nonattainment area for the 1997 annual 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Chattanooga TN–GA–AL Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). First, EPA is proposing to 

approve the portion of the attainment 

plan state implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), on October 15, 

2009, that addresses reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), for the Tennessee 

portion of the Area. EPA is not 

proposing to act on the portions of the 

SIP revision that are unrelated to 

RACM. Second, EPA is supplementing 

the Agency’s March 27, 2015, proposed 

approval of Tennessee’s November 13, 

2014, redesignation request for the 

Tennessee portion of the Area by 

proposing that approval of the RACM 

portion of the aforementioned SIP 

revision satisfies the applicable RACM 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 9, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0904, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0904,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation 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: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation 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–2014– 

0904. 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 56419 

1On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 

2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) found 

that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS pursuant solely to the general 

implementation provisions of Subpart 1 rather than 

the particulate matter-specific provisions of title I, 

part D, subpart 4. The court remanded both the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and the final rule 

entitled ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less 

than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) to EPA to address this error. 

2The Court issued an amended decision on July 

14, 2015, revising some of the legal aspects of the 

Court’s analysis of the relevant statutory provisions 

(section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and section 172(c)(1)) but 

maintaining its prior holding that section 172(c)(1) 

‘‘unambiguously requires implementation of 

RACM/RACT prior to redesignation . . . even if 

those measures are not strictly necessary to 

demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, Nos. 12–3169, 12–3182, 12– 

3420 (6th Cir. July 14, 2015). 

3The states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Tennessee are located within the Sixth Circuit’s 

jurisdiction. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be 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 Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey, Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Huey’s phone number is (404) 562– 

9104. He can also be reached via 

electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

the first air quality standards for PM2.5. 

EPA promulgated an annual standard at 

a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) (based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) and 

a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/m3 (based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations). 

See 62 FR 36852. On January 5, 2005, 

and supplemented on April 14, 2005, 

EPA designated Hamilton County in 

Tennessee, in association with counties 

in Alabama and Georgia in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 

19844, respectively. Designation of an 

area as nonattainment for PM2.5 starts 

the process for a state to develop and 

submit to EPA an attainment plan SIP 

revision under title I, part D of the CAA. 

This SIP revision must include, among 

other elements, a demonstration of how 

the NAAQS will be attained in the 

nonattainment area as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the 

attainment date required by the CAA. 

EPA designated all 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS areas under title I, part D, 

subpart 1 (hereinafter ‘‘Subpart 1’’). 

Subpart 1 contains the general 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

for criteria pollutants and is less 

prescriptive than the other subparts of 

title I, part D. On April 25, 2007, EPA 

promulgated a rule, codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart Z, to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under Subpart 1 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’).1 See 72 FR 

20586. On October 15, 2009, Tennessee 

submitted an attainment plan SIP 

revision pursuant to Subpart 1 and the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule that 

addressed RACM and contained a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

base-year and attainment-year emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures 

for the Area. 

On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31239), EPA 

published a final determination that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area had 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

based upon quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2007–2009 time period. In that 

determination and in accordance with 

the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule at 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA suspended the 

requirements for the Chattanooga TNGA-AL Area to submit attainment 

demonstrations and associated RACM, 

RFP plans, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, so long as the Area continues 

to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. See 40 CFR 52.2231(c); 76 FR 

31239. 

Tennessee submitted a request to EPA 

on November 13, 2014, to redesignate 

the State’s portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to 

approve a SIP revision containing a 

maintenance plan for the Tennessee 

portion of the Area. EPA proposed to 

approve the redesignation request and 

the related SIP revision in an action 

signed on March 11, 2015, based, in 

part, on the Agency’s longstanding 

interpretation that Subpart 1 

nonattainment planning requirements, 

including RACM, are not ‘‘applicable’’ 

for purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) once an area is attaining 

the NAAQS and, therefore, need not be 

approved into the SIP before EPA can 

redesignate the area. See 80 FR 16331 

(March 27, 2015). 

On March 18, 2015, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

(Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th 

Cir. 2015), that is inconsistent with this 

longstanding interpretation regarding 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In its decision, 

the Court vacated EPA’s redesignation 

of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area 

to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

because EPA had not yet approved 

Subpart 1 RACM for the Cincinnati Area 

into the Indiana and Ohio SIPs.2 The 

Court concluded that ‘‘a State seeking 

redesignation ‘shall provide for the 

implementation’ of RACM/RACT, even 

if those measures are not strictly 

necessary to demonstrate attainment 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS . . . . If a State 

has not done so, EPA cannot ‘fully 

approve[]’ the area’s SIP, and 

redesignation to attainment status is 

improper.’’ Sierra Club, 781 F.3d at 313. 

II. What are EPA’s proposed actions? 

EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA within 

the Court’s jurisdiction unless it is 

overturned.3 Although EPA continues to 

believe that Subpart 1 RACM is not an 

applicable requirement under section 

107(d)(3)(E) for an area that has already 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA is proposing two separate 

but related actions regarding the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4Pursuant to 40 CFR 56.5(b), the EPA Region 4 

Regional Administrator signed a memorandum on 

July 20, 2015, seeking concurrence from the 

Director of EPA’s Air Quality Policy Division 

(AQPD) in the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards to act inconsistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 

172(c)(1) when taking action on pending and future 

redesignation requests in Kentucky and Tennessee 

because the Region is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. The AQPD Director 

issued her concurrence on July 22, 2015. The July 

20, 2015, memorandum with AQPD concurrence is 

located in the docket for today’s proposed actions. 

5On September 3, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied 

the petitions for rehearing en banc of this portion 

of its opinion that were filed by EPA, the state of 

Ohio, and industry groups from Ohio. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, Nos. 12–3169, 12–3182, 12–3420, Doc. 

136–1 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2015). 

6Subpart 1 RACM requirements at 40 CFR 

51.1010 were not at issue in the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand of the PM2.5 implementation rule in the 

January 2013 Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA decision and are therefore not subject to the 

Court’s remand. Cf. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 

1252–53 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upholding a substantially 

similar interpretation of Subpart 1 RACM in the 

context of ozone implementation regulations). 

7As noted in the preamble to the PM2.5

Implementation Rule, if a ‘‘State could not achieve 

significant emissions reductions by the beginning of 

2008 due to time needed to implement reasonable 

measures or other factors, then it could be 

concluded that reasonably available local measures 

would not advance the attainment date.’’ See 72 FR 

20617. 

TN-GA-AL Area in response to the 

Court’s decision.4 5

First, EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of the State’s October 15, 2009, 

attainment plan SIP revision that 

addresses RACM under Subpart 1 for 

the Tennessee portion of the Area. 

Second, EPA is supplementing the 

Agency’s proposed approval of 

Tennessee’s November 13, 2014, 

redesignation request for the Area by 

proposing that approval of the RACM 

portion of the aforementioned SIP 

revision satisfies the Subpart 1 RACM 

requirement in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. More detail on 

EPA’s rationale for these proposed 

actions is provided below. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

RACM submittal? 

a. Subpart 1 RACM Requirements 

Subpart 1 requires that each 

attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from the 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ See CAA 

section 172(c)(1). EPA interprets RACM, 

including RACT, under section 172(c)(1) 

as measures that are both reasonably 

available and necessary to demonstrate 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable in the nonattainment area. 

See 40 CFR 51.1010(a).6 A state must 

adopt, as RACM, measures that are 

reasonably available considering 

technical and economic feasibility if, 

considered collectively, they would 

advance the attainment date by one year 

or more. See 40 CFR 51.1010(b). 

The PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

requires that the Subpart 1 RACM 

portion of the attainment plan SIP 

revision include the list of potential 

measures that a state considered and 

information sufficient to show that the 

state met all requirements for the 

determination of what constitutes 

RACM in a specific nonattainment area. 

See 40 CFR 51.1010(a). Any measures 

that are necessary to meet these 

requirements which are not already 

either federally promulgated, part of the 

state’s implementation plan, or 

otherwise creditable in SIPs must be 

submitted in enforceable form as part of 

a state’s attainment plan SIP revision for 

the area. As discussed above, an 

attainment determination suspends the 

requirement for a PM2.5 nonattainment 

area to submit an attainment plan SIP 

revision so long as the area continues to 

attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). 

b. Proposed Action on RACM Based 

Upon Attainment of the NAAQS 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of Tennessee’s October 15, 2009, 

attainment plan SIP revision that 

addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the 

State’s portion of the Area on the basis 

that the Area has attained the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore, no 

emission reduction measures are 

necessary to satisfy Subpart 1 RACM. As 

noted above, EPA has determined that 

the Area has attaining data for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and met the 

standard by the April 5, 2010, 

attainment date. See 77 FR 31239. 

Because the Area has attained the 

standard, there are no emissions 

controls that could advance the 

attainment date; thus, no emissions 

controls are necessary to satisfy Subpart 

1 RACM pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1010 

(defining RACM as the level of control 

necessary to advance the attainment 

date by one year or more). 

c. Proposed Action on RACM Based 

Upon the State’s Control Evaluation 

Additionally, the portion of 

Tennessee’s October 15, 2009, 

attainment plan SIP revision that 

addresses Subpart 1 RACM for the 

State’s portion of the Area is approvable 

on the basis that the SIP revision 

demonstrates that no additional 

reasonably available controls would 

have advanced the attainment date 

projected therein. 

Through participation in the regional 

planning efforts of the Visibility 

Improvement States and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

and the Association for Southeastern 

Integrated Planning (ASIP), Tennessee 

determined that existing measures and 

measures planned for implementation 

by 2009 would result in the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the end of 2009. Air 

quality modeling conducted by ASIP 

indicated that the Area would attain the 

annual NAAQS in 2009 based upon 

projected emissions reductions from 

sources within the Area after 2002 (the 

base year of the nonattainment 

emissions inventory). As discussed in 

Chapter 2.0 of the October 15, 2009, SIP 

revision, the State, in consultation with 

VISTAS and ASIP, considered the 

following existing federally enforceable 

measures in projecting the emissions 

inventory used for the 2009 modeling: 

Tier 2 vehicle standards; heavy-duty 

gasoline and diesel highway vehicle 

standards; large nonroad diesel engine 

standards; nonroad spark-ignition 

engines and recreational engines 

standards; NOX SIP call; and the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule. 

In Tennessee’s RACM analysis, which 

appears in chapter 4.0 of the October 15, 

2009, SIP revision, the State discusses 

its evaluation of sources of PM2.5 and its 

precursors within the Tennessee portion 

of the Area and its determination that 

these sources were meeting Subpart 1 

RACM levels of emissions control. As 

discussed above, a State must show that 

all Subpart 1 RACM (including RACT 

for stationary sources) necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously 

as practicable have been adopted and 

must consider the cumulative impact of 

implementing available measures to 

determine whether a particular emission 

reduction measure or set of measures is 

required to be adopted as RACM. 

Potential measures that are reasonably 

available considering technical and 

economic feasibility must be adopted as 

RACM if, considered collectively, they 

would advance the attainment date by 

one year or more. Because the 

attainment demonstration in 

Tennessee’s attainment plan SIP 

revision showed attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TNGA-AL Area by the end of 2009, only 

measures that would advance the 

attainment date to the end of 2008 

would be considered as Subpart 1 

RACM.7


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 56421 

8See Appendix 12 of the SIP submittal for a 

detailed discussion of the State’s analysis. 

Based on the emissions inventory and 

other information, the State identified 

the categories of sources that should be 

evaluated for controls. These categories 

include permitted stationary sources; 

gasoline dispensing facilities; on-road 

mobile sources; non-road and stationary 

internal combustion engines; open 

burning; and home heating with wood. 

With regard to permitted stationary 

sources, Tennessee noted that 

conservative sensitivity modeling, 

conducted by the Georgia Institute of 

Technology, showed that completely 

eliminating emissions of PM2.5, nitrogen 

oxides, and sulfur dioxide from nonutility point sources in the Tennessee 

portion of the Area would result in only 

small reductions in PM2.5

concentrations (0.06 mg/m3 to 0.25 mg/

m3). Nevertheless, Tennessee performed 

a detailed analysis of each major source 

operating in the State’s portion of the 

Area and determined that RACT levels 

of emission control were already in 

place.8 This analysis, and the results of 

sensitivity modeling, indicated that no 

additional reductions were available 

from local permitted stationary sources 

that would result in attainment in 2008 

rather than 2009. For gasoline 

dispensing facilities, Tennessee deemed 

the use of Stage 1 vapor recovery to be 

the RACT level of emissions control. 

Tennessee stated that the existing 

federally-approved inspection and 

maintenance program constitutes RACM 

for on-road mobile sources and that 

non-road mobile sources and stationary 

internal combustion engines are 

regulated by Federal rules. Regarding 

open burning, Chattanooga’s federallyapproved local implementation plan 

requires open burning permits, bans 

open burning from May 1 through 

September 30, and prohibits the burning 

of brush cleared for road building and 

trash in the Tennessee portion of the 

Area. The State also determined that 

only 712 households (0.6 percent of the 

total households in the Tennessee 

portion of the Area) were heating 

primarily with wood and that 

accelerated replacement of older wood 

burning stoves would not advance the 

attainment date given the ‘‘small portion 

of households using wood hearing, the 

mild local climate, and the normal 

purchases of Subpart AAA compliant 

wood burning stoves in the 

nonattainment area.’’ 

Through this evaluation, Tennessee 

determined that, for each category of 

potential measures, there were either no 

additional emission reductions that 

could be achieved or no emission 

reduction measures that could be 

practicably implemented in time to 

advance attainment to the end of 2008. 

EPA has reviewed the RACM portion of 

Tennessee’s October 15, 2009, 

attainment plan SIP revision and agrees 

with the State’s conclusion that no 

additional emissions reductions were 

available from local sources that would 

have advanced the projected 2009 

attainment date. 

IV. Why is EPA supplementing its 

proposed redesignation of the area? 

EPA’s March 11, 2015, proposal to 

approve Tennessee’s redesignation 

request for the Tennessee portion of the 

Area was based, in part, on the Agency’s 

longstanding interpretation that Subpart 

1 RACM need not be approved into a 

SIP before redesignation to attainment if 

the subject area is attaining the NAAQS. 

See 80 FR 16331. Although EPA 

disagrees with the portion of the Sixth 

Circuit’s opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA 

that is inconsistent with this 

interpretation, the Agency is bound by 

this decision within the Court’s 

jurisdiction unless it is overturned and 

must first approve Subpart 1 RACM into 

Tennessee’s SIP before it can 

redesignate the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area to attainment. Therefore, EPA is 

supplementing its redesignation 

proposal to now rely on approval of the 

RACM portion of the State’s October 15, 

2009, attainment plan SIP revision. 

V. Proposed Actions 

EPA has reviewed the RACM portion 

of Tennessee’s October 15, 2009, 

attainment plan SIP revision and 

proposes to approve it on the basis that 

it is consistent with the CAA, the CAA’s 

implementing regulations, and EPA 

guidance for attainment demonstration 

submittals. EPA is also supplementing 

its March 27, 2015, proposed approval 

of the State’s November 13, 2014, 

redesignation request for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area by proposing that approval of the 

RACM portion of the aforementioned 

SIP revision satisfies the Subpart 1 

RACM requirement in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Today’s 

proposed actions are focused solely on 

addressing the Sixth Circuit’s decision 

in Sierra Club v. EPA and do not reopen 

any other aspect of the March 27, 2015, 

proposal for comment. 

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. 

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 that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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). 

The SIP is 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 rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it 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, Intergovernmental relations, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 181 / Friday, September 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: September 9, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23382 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0514; FRL–9933–96– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans for 

Designated Facilities and Pollutants; 

Missouri; Sewage Sludge Incinerators 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the state plan for designated 

facilities and pollutants developed 

under sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

Clean Air Act for the State of Missouri. 

This proposed action will amend the 

state plan to include a new plan and 

associated rule implementing the 

emissions guidelines for Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

(CISWI) Units. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

October 19, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0514, by mail to Paula 

Higbee, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Higbee, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913–551–7028 

or by email at higbee.paula@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Commercial and 

industrial solid waste incinerators, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 3, 2015. 

Becky Weber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2015–23384 Filed 9–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 15, 73, and 74 

[MB Docket No. 15–146; GN Docket No. 12– 

268; DA 15–918] 

Preserving Vacant Channels in the 

UHF Television Band for Unlicensed 

Use 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media 

Bureau of the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) provides 

notice of the revised comment and reply 

comment deadlines in this proceeding. 

The comment period in this proceeding 

has previously been suspended pending 

action in the Commission’s incentive 

auction proceeding and the Media 

Bureau announces that it has been 

restarted and the new deadlines for 

filing comments and reply comments. 

DATES: Comments Due: September 30, 

2015. Reply Comments Due: October 30, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 15–146 

and GN Docket No. 12–268, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail.) All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shaun Maher, Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov of 

the Media Bureau, Video Division, (202) 

418–2324, and Paul Murray, 

Paul.Murray@fcc.gov of the Office of 

Engineering and Technology, (202) 418– 

0688. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Media Bureau’s Order, 

DA 15–918, adopted August 12, 2015, in 

MB Docket No. 15–146 (Order). The full 

text of the Order is available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

A257, Portals II, Washington, DC 20554. 

This document is available in 

alternative formats (computer diskette, 

large print, audio record, and Braille). 

Persons with disabilities who need 

documents in these formats may contact 

the FCC by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. 

Synopsis 

1. On June 16, 2015, the Commission 

released a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 6711 (2015) in 

MB Docket No. 15–146 (Vacant Channel 

NPRM) seeking comment on rules to 

preserve vacant television channels for 

shared use by white space devices and 

wireless microphones. On July 29, 2015, 

the Media Bureau, in an Order, DA 15– 

867, on delegated authority, suspended 

the comment and reply comment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS