Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67137 

X. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of Georgia’s 

redesignation request would change the 

legal designation of Catoosa and Walker 

Counties in Georgia for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Approval of GA EPD’s request would 

also incorporate a plan for maintaining 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area through 2025 

into the Georgia SIP. The maintenance 

plan includes contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures 

for evaluation of potential violations. 

The maintenance plan also includes 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Georgia 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. 

Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of its adequacy 

determination for the NOX and PM2.5

MVEBs for 2025 under 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1). 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

action[s]’’ subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 a 

significant economic impact 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). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Georgia, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26735 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0674; FRL–9919–17– 

Region 4] 

Approval of Implementation Plans and 

Designation of Areas: Alabama; 

Redesignation of the Alabama Portion 

of the Chattanooga, 1997 PM2.5

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 23, 2013, the 

Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), submitted a 

request to redesignate the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Chattanooga TN-GA Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) 

to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing a maintenance plan for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area. The Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area is comprised 

of a portion of Jackson County in 

Alabama. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the redesignation request and the 

related SIP revision, including the plan 

for maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard, for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the on-road motor 

vehicle insignificance determination for 

direct PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. On 

September 14, 2012, Georgia submitted 

a request to redesignate the Georgia 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, 

and EPA is expecting Tennessee to 

submit a request to redesignate the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area. EPA will be taking 

separate action on the requests from 

Georgia and Tennessee. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0674 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0674, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1On September 8, 2011, at 76 FR 55774, EPA 

determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable 

attainment date of April 5, 2010, and that the Area 

was continuing to attain the PM2.5 standard with 

monitoring data that was currently available. 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0674. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joydeb Majumder of the Regulatory 

Development Section, in the Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Joydeb 

Majumder may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9121, or via electronic mail at 

majumder.joydeb@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the request? 

VI. What is the effect of January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit decision regarding PM2.5

implementation under subpart 4? 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

proposed regional on-road motor vehicle 

insignificance determination for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA area? 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the on-road motor 

vehicle insignificance determination for 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA area? 

IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revision for the Alabama Portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

X. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

make a determination that Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area is continuing to attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 1 and to take 

additional actions related to Alabama’s 

request to redesignate the Alabama 

portion of the Area, which are 

summarized as follows and described in 

greater detail throughout this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. EPA proposes: (1) 

To redesignate the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS; and (2) to approve, under 

section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act), Alabama’s 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS maintenance plan for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area into the Alabama SIP. 

First, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area has met the requirements 

for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve a request 

to change the legal designation of the 

portion of Jackson County, Alabama, 

that is located within the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

maintenance plan for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

(such approval being one of the CAA 

criteria for redesignation to attainment 

status). The maintenance plan is 

designed to help keep the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area in attainment of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025. 

The maintenance plan that EPA is 

proposing to approve includes an 

insignificance determination for the onroad motor vehicle contribution of 

direct PM2.5 and NOX to ambient PM2.5

levels in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA is proposing to approve the on-road 

motor vehicle insignificance 

determination into the Alabama SIP that 

is included as part of Alabama’s 

maintenance plan for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Further, EPA proposes to make the 

determination that the Chattanooga TNGA Area is continuing to attain the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met for 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area. The bases for EPA’s 

determination for the Area are discussed 

in greater detail below. 

EPA is also providing the public with 

an update on the status of EPA’s 

adequacy process for the on-road motor 

vehicle insignificance determination for 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67139 

2 In response to legal challenges of the annual 

standard promulgated in 2006, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Cir.) remanded this NAAQS to EPA for 

further consideration. See American Farm Bureau 

Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et 

al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 Annual NAAQS are 

essentially identical, attainment of the 1997 Annual 

NAAQS would also indicate attainment of the 

remanded 2006 Annual NAAQS. 

TN-GA Area. Please see section VIII of 

this proposed rulemaking for further 

explanation of this process and for 

details. 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to Alabama’s 

April 23, 2013, SIP revision, which 

requests redesignation of the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS and addresses the specific 

issues summarized above and the 

necessary elements for redesignation 

described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

Fine particle pollution can be emitted 

directly or formed secondarily in the 

atmosphere. The main precursors of 

secondary PM2.5 are sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), NOX, ammonia, and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). See 72 FR 

20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). Sulfates 

are a type of secondary particle formed 

from SO2 emissions of power plants and 

industrial facilities. Nitrates, another 

common type of secondary particle, are 

formed from NOX emissions of power 

plants, automobiles, and other 

combustion sources. 

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. In 

the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated 

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

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On 

October 17, 2006, EPA retained the 

annual average NAAQS at 15 mg/m3 but 

revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 mg/

m3, based again on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations.2 See 71 FR 61144. Under 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 

primary and secondary 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the 

annual arithmetic mean concentration, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than 

or equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all relevant 

monitoring sites in the subject area over 

a 3-year period. 

On January 5, 2005, and 

supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA 

designated a portion of Jackson County, 

Alabama, in association with counties 

in Georgia and Tennessee in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 

19844, respectively. On November 13, 

2009, EPA promulgated designations for 

the 24-hour standard established in 

2006, designating counties in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 

58688. That action also clarified that the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area was classified unclassifiable/

attainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS promulgated. EPA did not 

promulgate designations for the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006 

since that NAAQS was essentially 

identical to the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

is designated nonattainment for the 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 

1997, and today’s action only addresses 

this designation. 

All 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas were 

designated under subpart 1 of title I, 

part D, of the CAA. Subpart 1 contains 

the general requirements for 

nonattainment areas for any pollutant 

governed by a NAAQS and is less 

prescriptive than the other subparts of 

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

promulgated its PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

Z, in which the Agency provided 

guidance for state and tribal plans to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

72 FR 20664. That rule, at 40 CFR 

51.1004(c), specifies some of the 

regulatory results of attaining the 

NAAQS, as discussed below. The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) remanded the Clean Air Fine 

Particle 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)’’ final rule (73 FR 

28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, 

‘‘1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’) to 

EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The court 

found that EPA erred in implementing 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, 

rather than the particulate matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of part 

D of title I. The effect of the court’s 

ruling on this proposed redesignation 

action is discussed in detail in Section 

VI of this notice. 

The 3-year ambient air quality data for 

2007–2009 indicated no violations of 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. As a result, 

on April 23, 2013, Alabama requested 

redesignation of the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The redesignation request 

includes three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient air quality data 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 

2007–2009, indicating that this NAAQS 

had been achieved for the entire 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. Under the 

CAA, nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient, 

complete, quality-assured data is 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). The Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area’s design value, based on 

data from 2007 through 2009, is below 

15.0 mg/m3, which demonstrates 

attainment of the standards. While 

annual PM2.5 concentrations are 

dependent on a variety of conditions, 

the overall improvement in annual 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area can be attributed to the 

reduction of pollutant emissions, as will 

be discussed in more detail in section V 

of this proposed rulemaking. 

The D.C. Circuit and the United States 

Supreme Court have issued a number of 

decisions and orders regarding the 

status of EPA’s regional trading 

programs for transported air pollution, 

CAIR and CSAPR, that impact this 

proposed redesignation action. The 

effect of those court actions on this 

rulemaking is discussed in detail in 

Section V of this notice. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided the following 

criteria are met: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D of title I of the CAA. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498) and supplemented 

on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070)) and 

has provided further guidance on 

processing redesignation requests in the 

following documents: 

1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; and 

3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these 

actions? 

On April 23, 2013, ADEM requested 

the redesignation of the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and EPA’s preliminary 

evaluation indicates that the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

has met the requirements for 

redesignation set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance 

plan requirements under section 175A 

of the CAA. EPA is also announcing the 

status of its adequacy determination for 

the insignificance determinations for 

both NOX and direct PM2.5 for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area. Additionally, EPA is also 

approving the insignificance 

determinations for both NOX and direct 

PM2.5 that were included in Alabama’s 

maintenance plan. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

As stated above, in accordance with 

the CAA, EPA proposes in today’s 

action to: (1) Redesignate the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS; and (2) approve, into the 

Alabama SIP, the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS maintenance plan, including 

the mobile source emissions 

insignificance determination under 

transportation conformity, for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area. Further, EPA proposes to 

make the determination that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area continues to 

attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and that all other redesignation criteria 

have been met for the Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. The 

five redesignation criteria provided 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are 

discussed in greater detail for the Area 

in the following paragraphs of this 

section. 

Criteria (1)—The Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area has attained the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area continues to 

attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

since the May 31, 2011, attainment 

determination. See 76 FR 31239. For 

PM2.5, an area may be considered to be 

attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS if it meets the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and 

Appendix N of part 50, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year 

average of the annual arithmetic mean 

concentration, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix N, must be less than or equal 

to 15.0 mg/m3 at all relevant monitoring 

sites in the subject area over a 3-year 

period. The relevant data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in the EPA Air Quality System 

(AQS) database. The monitors generally 

should have remained at the same 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

On May 31, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Chattanooga TN-GA Area was 

attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. See 76 FR 31239. For that 

action, EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring 

data from monitoring stations in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007–2009. 

These data had been quality-assured by 

the respective state agencies and are 

recorded in AQS. In addition, on 

September 8, 2011, at 76 FR 55774, EPA 

finalized a determination that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area attained the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010. As summarized in Table 1, below, 

the 3-year averages of annual arithmetic 

mean concentrations (i.e., design values) 

for the years 2009 through 2013 for the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area are below the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5

NAAQS (μG/M3) 

Location County Site ID 

3-year design values 

2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

Rossville—Maple 

St., Georgia.

Walker County, 

Georgia.

132950002 * 12.3 10.6 10.1 10.0 10.5 

Siskin Drive/UTC, 

Tennessee.

Hamilton County, 

Tennessee.

470654002 12.9 11.6 11.1 10.9 10.0 

Maxwell Road/East 

Ridge, Tennessee.

Hamilton County, 

Tennessee.

470650031 12.7 11.7 11.2 11.1 10.1 

Soddy-Daisy High 

School, Tennessee.

Hamilton County, 

Tennessee.

470651011 11.8 11.4 11.0 11.2 9.8 

* Values subject to data substitution (76 FR 15895) 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67141 

As discussed above, the design value 

for an area is the highest 3-year average 

of annual mean concentrations recorded 

at any monitor in the Area. Therefore, 

the 3-year design value for the period on 

which Alabama based its redesignation 

request (2007–2009) for the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area is 12.9 mg/m3, which is 

below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additional details can be found in 

EPA’s final clean data determination for 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. See 76 FR 

31239 (May 31, 2011). EPA has 

reviewed more recent data which 

indicate that the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area continues to attain the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the 

submitted 3-year attainment period of 

2007–2009. If the Area does not 

continue to attain before EPA finalizes 

the redesignation, EPA will not go 

forward with the redesignation. As 

discussed in more detail below, the four 

PM2.5 monitors in the Area will 

continue to operate in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 unless a change is 

approved by EPA. 

Criteria (5)—Alabama has met all 

Applicable Requirements under Section 

110 and part D of the CAA; and Criteria 

(2)—Alabama has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) for the Alabama 

Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the state has met 

all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D of title I of the 

CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and 

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) for the area (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes 

to find that Alabama has met all 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements) for purposes 

of redesignation. Additionally, EPA 

proposes to find that the Alabama SIP 

satisfies the criterion that it meets 

applicable SIP requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to 1997 Annual PM2.5

nonattainment areas) in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, 

EPA proposes to determine that the SIP 

is fully approved with respect to all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, EPA ascertained which 

requirements are applicable to the Area 

and, if applicable, that they are fully 

approved under section 110(k). SIPs 

must be fully approved only with 

respect to requirements that were 

applicable prior to submittal of the 

complete redesignation request. 

a. The Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area has met all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

General SIP requirements. Section 

110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates 

the general requirements for a SIP, 

which include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques; provisions for the 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices necessary to collect 

data on ambient air quality; and 

programs to enforce the limitations. 

General SIP elements and requirements 

are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of 

title I, part A of the CAA. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: submittal of a 

SIP that has been adopted by the state 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing; provisions for establishment 

and operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs); provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

the interstate transport of air pollutants. 

The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements 

for a state are not linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that the CAA’s interstate 

transport requirements should be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

attainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability (i.e., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, as well 

as with section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 

50399, October 19, 2001). 

On October 1, 2012, April 12, 2013, 

and May 7, 2014, EPA approved all 

infrastructure SIP elements required 

under section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the 

exception of the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

element that requires the State to 

comply with section 128 of the CAA. 

See 77 FR 59755 (October 1, 2012), 77 

FR 62452 (October 15, 2012), 78 FR 

21841 (April 12, 2013), and 79 FR 26143 

(May 7, 2014). These requirements are, 

however, statewide requirements that 

are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the Area. As 

stated above, EPA believes that section 

110 elements not linked to an area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, 

EPA believes it has approved all SIP 

elements under section 110 that must be 

approved as a prerequisite for the 

redesignation to attainment of the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area. 

Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable 

SIP requirements. EPA proposes to 

determine that the Alabama SIP meets 

the applicable SIP requirements for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of 

part D, found in sections 172–176 of the 

CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. All areas that were 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS were designated 

under subpart 1 of the CAA. For 

purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for 

all nonattainment areas are contained in 

sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and in section 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3This regulation was promulgated as part of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule that was 

subsequently challenged and remanded in NRDC v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), as discussed in 

Section VI of this notice. However, the Clean Data 

Policy portion of the implementation rule was not 

at issue in that case. 

4CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle 

emission budgets that are established in control 

strategy SIPs and maintenance plans. 

176. A thorough discussion of the 

requirements contained in section 172 

can be found in the General Preamble 

for Implementation of title I. See 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992). Section VI of 

this proposed rulemaking notice 

discusses the relationship between this 

proposed redesignation action and 

subpart 4 of Part D. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for 

all nonattainment areas to provide for 

the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all nonattainment 

areas to consider all available control 

measures and to adopt and implement 

such measures as are reasonably 

available for implementation in each 

area as components of the area’s 

attainment demonstration. Under 

section 172, states with nonattainment 

areas must submit plans providing for 

timely attainment and meeting a variety 

of other requirements. 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation of 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of section 172 is that once 

an area is attaining the NAAQS, those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 

and therefore need not be approved into 

the SIP before EPA can redesignate the 

area. In the 1992 General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth 

its interpretation of applicable 

requirements for purposes of evaluating 

redesignation requests when an area is 

attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 

13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that 

the requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures designed to 

provide for attainment do not apply in 

evaluating redesignation requests 

because those nonattainment planning 

requirements ‘‘have no meaning’’ for an 

area that has already attained the 

standard. Id. This interpretation was 

also set forth in the Calcagni 

Memorandum. EPA’s understanding of 

section 172 also forms the basis of its 

Clean Data Policy, which was 

articulated with regard to PM2.5 in 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state’s 

obligation to submit most of the 

attainment planning requirements that 

would otherwise apply, including an 

attainment demonstration and planning 

SIPs to provide for reasonable further 

progress (RFP), RACM, and contingency 

measures under section 172(c)(9).3

Courts have upheld EPA’s interpretation 

of section 172(c)(1)’s ‘‘reasonably 

available’’ control measures and control 

technology as meaning only those 

controls that advance attainment, which 

precludes the need to require additional 

measures where an area is already 

attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 

1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 

(5th Cir. 2002). 

Therefore, because attainment has 

been reached in the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment, and 

section 172(c)(1) requirements for an 

attainment demonstration and RACM 

are no longer considered to be 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

as long as the Area continues to attain 

the standard until redesignation. 

Section 172(c)(2) requirement that 

nonattainment plans contain provisions 

promoting reasonable further progress 

toward attainment is also not relevant 

for purposes of redesignation because 

EPA has determined that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. In addition, because the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area has attained 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

no longer subject to a RFP requirement, 

the requirement to submit the section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures is not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires 

the SIP to contain control measures 

necessary to provide for attainment of 

the NAAQS. Because attainment has 

been reached, no additional measures 

are needed to provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

approval of a comprehensive, accurate, 

and current inventory of actual 

emissions. On February 8, 2012, EPA 

approved Alabama’s 2002 base-year 

emissions inventory for the Alabama 

Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

as part of the SIP revision submitted by 

ADEM to provide for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 77 

FR 6467. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources to be 

allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Alabama 

has demonstrated that the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

will be able to maintain the NAAQS 

without part D NSR in effect, and 

therefore, Alabama need not have fully 

approved part D NSR programs prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

Alabama’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area upon 

redesignation to attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA 

believes the Alabama SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

176 Conformity Requirements. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federallysupported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects that are developed, funded, or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federallysupported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement, and enforceability that 

EPA promulgated pursuant to its 

authority under the CAA. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements 4 as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67143 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this 

interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); See 60 FR 

62748 (December 7, 1995). 

Thus, for the reasons discussed above, 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area has satisfied all applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 and 

part D of the CAA. 

b. The Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area has a fully 

approved applicable SIP under section 

110(k) of the CAA. 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

Alabama SIP for the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 nonattainment area 

under section 110(k) of the CAA for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request (see Calcagni 

Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998); 

Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations 

therein. Following passage of the CAA 

of 1970, Alabama has adopted and 

submitted, and EPA has fully approved 

at various times, provisions addressing 

the various SIP elements applicable for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area (e.g., 77 FR 59755 (October 1, 

2012)). As indicated above, EPA 

believes that the section 110 elements 

not connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Criteria (3)—The air quality 

improvement in the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP and applicable federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions. 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA believes that 

Alabama has demonstrated that the 

observed air quality improvement in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and Federal 

measures. 

Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, 

refers to airborne particles less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. 

Although treated as a single pollutant, 

fine particles come from many different 

sources and are composed of many 

different compounds. In the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area, one of the 

largest components of PM2.5 is sulfate, 

which is formed through various 

chemical reactions from the precursor 

SO2. The other major component of 

PM2.5 is organic carbon, which 

originates predominantly from biogenic 

emission sources. Nitrate, which is 

formed from the precursor NOX, is also 

a component of PM2.5. Crustal materials 

from windblown dust and elemental 

carbon from combustion sources are less 

significant contributors to total PM2.5. 

VOCs, also precursors for PM, are 

emitted from a variety of sources, 

including motor vehicles, chemical 

plants, refineries, factories, consumer 

and commercial products, and other 

industrial sources. VOCs also are 

emitted by natural sources such as 

vegetation. 

Federal measures enacted in recent 

years have resulted in permanent 

emission reductions in particulate 

matter and its precursors. Most of these 

emission reductions are enforceable 

through regulations. The Federal 

measures that have been implemented 

include: 

Tier 2 vehicle standards and lowsulfur gasoline. In addition to requiring 

NOX controls, the Tier 2 rule reduced 

the allowable sulfur content of gasoline 

to 30 parts per million (ppm) starting in 

January of 2006. Most gasoline sold 

prior to this had a sulfur content of 

approximately 300 ppm. 

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 

highway vehicle standards & Ultra LowSulfur Diesel Rule. On October 6, 2000, 

the U.S. EPA promulgated a rule to 

reduce NOX and VOC emissions from 

heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway 

vehicles that began to take effect in 

2004. See 65 FR 59896. A second phase 

of standards and testing procedures 

began in 2007 to reduce particulate 

matter from heavy-duty highway 

engines, and reduce highway diesel fuel 

sulfur content to 15 ppm since the 

sulfur in fuel damages high efficiency 

catalytic exhaust emission control 

devices. The total program should 

achieve a 90 percent reduction PM 

emissions and a 95 percent reduction in 

NOX emission for new engines using 

low-sulfur diesel, compared to existing 

engines using higher-content sulfur 

diesel. 

Non-road, large spark-ignition 

engines and recreational engines 

standards. The non-road spark-ignition 

and recreational engine standards, 

effective in July 2003, regulate NOX, 

hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide 

from groups of previously unregulated 

non-road engines. These engine 

standards apply to large spark-ignition 

engines (e.g., forklifts and airport 

ground service equipment), recreational 

vehicles (e.g., off-highway motorcycles 

and all-terrain-vehicles), and 

recreational marine diesel engines sold 

in the United States and imported after 

the effective date of these standards. 

When all of the non-road sparkignition and recreational engine 

standards are fully implemented, an 

overall 72 percent reduction in 

hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in 

NOX, and 56 percent reduction in 

carbon monoxide emissions are 

expected by 2020. These controls will 

help reduce ambient concentrations of 

ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine 

particulate matter. 

Large non-road diesel engine 

standards. Promulgated in 2004, this 

rule is being phased in between 2008 

and 2014. This rule will reduce sulfur 

content in non-road diesel fuel and, 

when fully implemented, will reduce 

NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions by over 

90 percent from these engines. 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine standard. Initially promulgated 

in 2010, this rule regulates emissions of 

air toxics from existing diesel powered 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines that meet specific 

site rating, age, and size criteria. With 

all of the reciprocating internal 

combustion engine standards fully 

implemented in 2013, EPA estimates 

that PM2.5 emissions from these engines 

have been reduced by approximately 

2,800 tons per year (tpy). 

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine 

standard. Promulgated in 2010, this rule 

establishes more stringent exhaust 

emission standards for new large marine 

diesel engines with per cylinder 

displacement at or above 30 liters 

(commonly referred to as Category 3 

compression-ignition marine engines) as 

part of a coordinated strategy to address 

emissions from all ships that affect U.S. 

air quality. Near-term standards for 

newly built engines applied beginning 

in 2011, and long-term standards 

requiring an 80 percent reduction in 

NOX emissions will begin in 2016. 

NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP 

Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of 

NOX. Affected states were required to 

comply with Phase I of the SIP Call 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5CAIR addressed the 1997 PM2.5 Annual standard 

and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. CSAPR 

addresses contributions from upwind states to 

downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard as well as the ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR. 

6The air quality modeling analysis for the CSAPR 

rulemaking did not identify any of the four 

monitors in the Chattanooga TN-GA Area as 

receptors. 

beginning in 2004 and Phase II 

beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

CAIR and CSAPR. The Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) was promulgated 

in 2005 and required 28 eastern states 

and the District of Columbia to 

significantly reduce emissions of SO2

and NOX from electric generating units 

(EGUs) in order to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the 

ozone and fine particulate matter they 

form in the atmosphere. 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005). In 2008, the D.C. Circuit 

initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 

8, 2011, acting on the Court’s remand, 

EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address 

interstate transport of emissions and 

resulting secondary air pollutants and to 

replace CAIR (76 FR 48208).5 CSAPR 

requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 

states in the Eastern United States. 

Implementation of the rule was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs 

would have superseded the CAIR capand-trade programs. Numerous parties 

filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and 

on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

issued an order staying CSAPR pending 

resolution of the petitions and directing 

EPA to continue to administer CAIR. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 

2011), Order at 2. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to the Agency and 

once again ordering continued 

implementation of CAIR. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit 

subsequently denied EPA’s petition for 

rehearing en banc. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302, 

2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 

2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then 

petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ 

of certiorari, and the Supreme Court 

granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013). 

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court 

vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision regarding CSAPR and 

remanded that decision to the D.C. 

Circuit to resolve remaining issues in 

accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 

1584 (2014). EPA filed a motion to lift 

the stay in light of the Supreme Court 

decision, and on October 23, 2014, the 

D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 

Case No. 11–1302, Document No. 

1518738. 

EPA approved a modification to 

Alabama’s SIP on October 1, 2007, that 

addressed the requirements of CAIR for 

the purpose of reducing SO2 and NOX

emissions (see 72 FR 55659), and 

Alabama’s SIP redesignation request 

lists CAIR/CSAPR as a control measure. 

CAIR was in place and getting emission 

reductions when the Chattanooga TNGA Area began monitoring attainment of 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

quality-assured, certified monitoring 

data used to demonstrate the area’s 

attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the April 5, 2010, attainment 

deadline was also impacted by CAIR. 

However, EPA conducted an air quality 

modeling analysis as part of the CSAPR 

rulemaking which demonstrates that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area would be able 

to maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS even in the absence of either 

CAIR or CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document,’’ App. B, B–39.6 This 

modeling is available in the docket for 

this proposed redesignation action. In 

addition, as noted above, the D.C. 

Circuit has lifted the stay of CSAPR. 

Therefore, to the extent that these 

transport rules impact attainment of the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area, any emission 

reductions associated with CAIR that 

helped the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

achieve attainment of the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS are permanent and 

enforceable for purposes of 

redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA because 

CSAPR requires similar or greater 

emission reductions from relevant 

upwind areas starting in 2015 and 

beyond. 

Criteria (4) —The Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area has a fully 

approved maintenance plan pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA. 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 175A of the CAA 

(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area to attainment 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

ADEM submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the effective date of 

redesignation to attainment. EPA 

believes that this maintenance plan 

meets the requirements for approval 

under section 175A of the CAA. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, ADEM must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, as EPA deems 

necessary, to assure prompt correction 

of any future 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS violations. The Calcagni 

Memorandum provides further guidance 

on the content of a maintenance plan, 

explaining that a maintenance plan 

should address five requirements: the 

attainment emissions inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. As 

is discussed below, EPA finds that 

ADEM’s maintenance plan includes all 

the necessary components and is thus 

proposing to approve it as a revision to 

the Alabama SIP. 

b. CAA 175 Maintenance Plan 

Requirements 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

The Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on monitoring data for the 3-year 

period from 2007–2009. ADEM has 

selected 2007 as the attainment 

emission inventory year. The attainment 

inventory identifies a level of emissions 

in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. ADEM 

began development of the attainment 

inventory by first generating a baseline 

emissions inventory for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67145 

As noted above, the year 2007 was 

chosen as the base year for developing 

a comprehensive emissions inventory 

for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

SO2 and NOX. Emissions projections to 

support maintenance through 2025 have 

been prepared for the years 2017 and 

2025. The projected inventory included 

with the maintenance plan estimates 

emissions forward to 2025, which 

satisfies the 10-year interval required in 

section 175(A) of the CAA. 

The emissions inventories are 

composed of four major types of 

sources: point, area, on-road mobile, 

and non-road mobile. The 2007 

inventory, with the exception of on-road 

mobile emissions, was prepared for 

Alabama by the contractor for the 

Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and 

Planning (SEMAP) project. Under the 

SEMAP project, emissions estimates are 

reported by county and source 

classification code. The SEMAP 

emissions inventories were developed 

using data from a number of sources, 

including state and local agencies and 

EPA’s National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). ADEM developed the 2007 

inventory of on-road mobile emissions. 

The 2007 SO2, NOX, and PM2.5

emissions for the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, as well as 

the emissions for other years, were 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance and are summarized in Tables 

2 through 6 of the following subsection 

discussing the maintenance 

demonstration. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

The April 23, 2013, final submittal 

includes a maintenance plan for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area. This demonstration: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the Annual PM2.5

standard by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of SO2 and NOX

will remain below 2007 emission levels. 

(ii) Uses 2007 as the attainment year 

and includes future emission inventory 

projections for 2017 and 2025. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10 

years after EPA review and potential 

approval of the maintenance plan. 

ADEM submitted an insignificance 

determination for transportation 

conformity purposes for PM2.5 and NOX

for the mobile source contribution for 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area, per 40 CFR part 93. 

(iv) Provides, as shown in Tables 2, 3, 

4, 5, and 6 below, the actual and 

projected emissions inventories, in tpy, 

for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. 

TABLE 2—ACTUAL (2007) AND PROJECTED POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA

[Tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2017 2025 

SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 32,803.98 10,515.63 10,517.47 

NOX ................................................................................................................................................................ 18,591.83 3,468.44 3,607.05 

PM2.5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 755.49 534.89 534.89 

TABLE 3—ACTUAL (2007) AND PROJECTED NON-POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA

[Tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2017 2025 

SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.25 0.25 0.24 

NOX ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.58 1.55 1.57 

PM2.5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 27.11 28.08 29.17 

TABLE 4—ACTUAL (2007) AND PROJECTED ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES EMISSIONS FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA

[Tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2017 2025 

SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.19 0.07 0.07 

NOX ................................................................................................................................................................ 23.00 9.00 6.00 

PM2.5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.73 0.31 0.24 

TABLE 5—ACTUAL (2007) AND PROJECTED NON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA

[Tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2017 2025 

SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.91 0.15 0.15 

NOX ................................................................................................................................................................ 37.32 25.86 18.95 

PM2.5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 2.05 1.01 0.63 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7Based on a limited review of data and emissions 

projections available to EPA from the Georgia and 

Tennessee portions of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, 

EPA does not at this time believe that projected 

emissions from those portions of the Area present 

a maintenance problem for air quality in the Area 

as a whole. 

TABLE 6—ACTUAL (2007) AND PROJECTED EMISSIONS FOR ALL SECTORS FOR THE ALABAMA PORTION OF THE

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA

[Tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2017 2025 

SO2 ................................................................................................................................................................ 32,805.33 10,516.10 10,517.93 

NOX ................................................................................................................................................................ 18,653.73 3,504.83 3,633.57 

PM2.5 .............................................................................................................................................................. 785.38 564.29 564.93 

As reflected in Table 6, future 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and the 

relevant precursors are expected to be 

below the ‘‘attainment level’’ emissions 

in 2007. In situations where local 

emissions are the primary contributor to 

nonattainment, such as the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area, if the future projected 

emissions in the nonattainment area 

remain at or below the baseline 

emissions in the nonattainment area, 

then the ambient air quality standard 

should not be exceeded in the future. As 

explained below, EPA finds that the 

overall emission projections illustrate 

that the Chattanooga TN-GA Area is 

expected to continue to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.7

Emissions of SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 are 

projected to decline by 68 percent, 81 

percent, and 28 percent, respectively, 

from 2007 to 2025. This is a reflection 

of the implementation of the majority of 

Federal controls during the first half of 

the maintenance period. The projected 

declines in emissions demonstrate that 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS will be 

maintained. 

A maintenance plan requires the state 

to show that projected future year 

emissions will not exceed the level of 

emissions which led the Area to attain 

the NAAQS. EPA agrees that Alabama’s 

projected emissions demonstrate that 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area will 

continue to attain for the duration of the 

maintenance plan. 

3. Monitoring Network 

There is no monitor measuring 

ambient PM2.5 in the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. However, 

there are four monitors located in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. Three 

monitors are located in Hamilton 

County, Tennessee, and one monitor is 

located in Walker County, Georgia. As 

noted in Alabama’s maintenance plan, 

all four monitors will continue to 

operate in the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 

unless a change is approved by EPA, 

and no plans are underway to 

discontinue operation, relocate, or 

otherwise affect the integrity of these 

monitors. EPA proposes to find that 

Alabama has thus addressed the 

requirement for monitoring. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

ADEM has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area through 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance 

plan. This includes the authority to 

adopt, implement, and enforce any 

subsequent emissions control 

contingency measures determined to be 

necessary to correct future PM2.5

attainment problems. 

ADEM will track the progress of the 

maintenance plan by performing future 

reviews of triennial emission 

inventories for the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area as 

required in the Air Emissions Reporting 

Rule (AERR) and Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). For 

these periodic inventories, ADEM will 

review the assumptions made for the 

purpose of the maintenance 

demonstration concerning projected 

growth of activity levels. If any of these 

assumptions appear to have changed 

substantially, then ADEM will re-project 

emissions for the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. 

5. Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan. 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the contingency measures to be adopted, 

a schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a time limit 

for action by ADEM. A state should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be implemented. The 

maintenance plan must include a 

requirement that a state will implement 

all measures with respect to control of 

the pollutant that were contained in the 

SIP before redesignation of the area to 

attainment in accordance with section 

175A(d). 

The contingency plan included in the 

submittal includes a triggering 

mechanism to determine when 

contingency measures are needed and a 

process of developing and 

implementing appropriate control 

measures. ADEM will use actual 

ambient monitoring data to determine 

whether a trigger event has occurred 

and when contingency measures should 

be implemented. ADEM commits to 

adopt, within 18 months of certification 

of a violation of the Annual PM2.5

standard, one or more control measures 

as needed to re-attain the standard. 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 58, 

ambient fine particulate matter 

monitoring data that indicates a future 

violation of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS will begin the process to 

implement these contingency measures. 

Also, in the event that the annual 

average PM2.5 concentrations in a year at 

any individual monitor in the Area 

records a reading of 15.0 mg/m3 or 

higher, the State will evaluate existing 

control measures to determine whether 

any further emissions reduction 

measures should be implemented at that 

time. 

Several factors will be considered in 

determining the need for additional 

control measures in the event of a future 

year violation of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

standard. Depending on when such 

future year violation occurs, additional 

local and regional emissions reductions 

may still be expected from various 

regulatory programs not accounted for 

in the redesignation request. If a future 

year violation occurs, ADEM will 

consider the air quality impact of these 

various regulatory programs in 

determining the need for additional 

local reductions in emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and/or SO2. 

If deemed necessary, contingency 

measures will be selected from the 

following types of measures or from any 

other measures deemed appropriate and 

effective at the time the selection is 

made: 

• Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM) for sources of SO2

and PM2.5; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67147 

8Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

• Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for point sources of 

SO2 and PM2.5; 

• Expansion of RACM/RACT to area 

of transport within the State; and 

• Additional SO2 and/or PM2.5

reduction measures yet to be identified. 

Any resulting contingency measures 

will be based upon cost effectiveness, 

emission reduction potential, economic 

and social consideration, ease and 

timing of implementation, and other 

appropriate factors. 

A timeline of the development of 

PM2.5, and/or SO2 regulations or permit 

conditions follows. This schedule 

initiates with certification of ambient air 

quality monitoring data indicating a 

violation of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS: 

TABLE 7—SCHEDULE FOR PERMIT REVISIONS OR RULE REVISIONS FOR CONTINGENCY MEASURES

1 .............. Identify and quantify the emissions reductions expected to result in the future from existing and future state and federal regulatory programs.3 months. 

2 .............. Use the best available air quality modeling to evaluate the air quality improvement expected to result in Jackson 

County from the programs and emissions reductions identified in Step 1 above.

6 months. 

3 .............. Draft any needed permit conditions or SIP regulations ................................................................................................... 3 months. 

4 .............. Complete rulemaking or permit revision process and submit to EPA ............................................................................. 6 months. 

Completion no later than .................................................................................................................................................. 18 months. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components required: the 

attainment emissions inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. 

Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP 

revision submitted by ADEM for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area meets the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA and EPA is 

proposing that Alabama’s submission is 

approvable. 

VI. What is the effect of the January 4, 

2013, D.C. Circuit decision regarding 

PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4? 

a. Background 

As discussed in Section I of this 

action, the D.C. Circuit remanded the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA 

on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428. The court found that EPA 

erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of Title I of the CAA rather 

than the particulate matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title 

I. 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of the proposed 

redesignation, EPA addresses the effect 

of the Court’s January 4, 2013, ruling on 

the proposed redesignation. As 

explained below, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision does not prevent EPA 

from redesignating the Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area to 

attainment. Even in light of the Court’s 

decision, redesignation for this area is 

appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s 

longstanding interpretations of the 

CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area redesignation 

request and disregards the provisions of 

its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

recently remanded by the Court, the 

State’s request for redesignation of the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area still qualifies for approval. 

EPA’s discussion takes into account the 

effect of the Court’s ruling on the 

maintenance plan for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, 

which EPA views as approvable when 

subpart 4 requirements are considered. 

c. Applicable Requirements for the 

Purpose of Evaluating the Redesignation 

Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1 and remanded 

that matter to EPA to address 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D of the 

CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the 

purposes of evaluating Alabama’s 

redesignation request for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, 

to the extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

redesignation of the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for the plan and Redesignation 

to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in already 

implemented or due at the time of 

attainment’’).8 In this case, at the time 

that Alabama submitted its 

redesignation request on April 23, 2013, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9PM10 refers to particles nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 10See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992) (the ‘‘General Preamble’’). 

requirements under subpart 4 were not 

due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area redesignation, 

the subpart 4 requirements were not due 

at the time the State submitted the 

redesignation request is in keeping with 

the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 

requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 

redesignated subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the 

Court found that EPA was not permitted 

to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard solely under subpart 1 and 

held that EPA was required under the 

statute to implement the standard under 

the ozone-specific requirements of 

subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 

South Coast decision, in evaluating and 

acting upon redesignation requests for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 

were submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D.’’ 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

d. Subpart 4 Requirements and the 

Alabama Portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

State submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, 

though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area to attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area, EPA notes that subpart 4 

incorporates components of subpart 1 of 

part D, which contains general air 

quality planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 

specific planning and scheduling 

requirements for PM109 nonattainment 

areas, and under the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these 

same statutory requirements also apply 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas.10 In 

the General Preamble, EPA discussed 

the relationship of subpart 1 and 

subpart 4 SIP requirements and pointed 

out that subpart 1 requirements were to 

an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ See 57 FR 13538 (April 

16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment area. Under section 188 

of the CAA, all areas designated 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4 

would initially be classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67149 

11The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

12 i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP milestone 

requirements, and RACM. 

13As explained above, EPA does not believe that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

14Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.11 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a PSD program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,12 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining 

the PM2.5 standard is viewed as having 

satisfied the attainment planning 

requirements for these subparts. As 

discussed above, for redesignations, 

EPA has for many years interpreted 

attainment-linked requirements as not 

applicable for areas attaining the 

standard. 

Therefore, even if we were to consider 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision in 

NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainmentrelated requirements specific to subpart 

4 should be imposed retroactively 13 and 

thus are now past due, those 

requirements do not apply to an area 

that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard 

for the purpose of evaluating a pending 

request to redesignate the area to 

attainment. Elsewhere in this notice, 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Area has attained the 1997 PM2.5

standard. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the Area meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 189(a)(1)(C), and a RFP 

demonstration under 189(c)(1) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

e. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area is consistent with the Court’s 

decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to determine whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time that the 

state submitted the redesignation 

request, and disregards the 

implementation rule’s rebuttable 

presumptions regarding ammonia and 

VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory 

consequence would be to consider the 

need for regulation of all precursors 

from any sources in the area to 

demonstrate attainment and to apply the 

section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, 

EPA believes that doing so is consistent 

with proposing redesignation of the area 

for the PM2.5 standard. The Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area has attained the standard 

without any specific additional controls 

of VOC and ammonia emissions from 

any sources in the Area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.14

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15The Chattanooga TN-GA Area has reduced 

VOC emissions through the implementation of 

various control programs including various on-road 

and non-road motor vehicle control programs. 

16See ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 17See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA et 

al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538 (April 

16, 1992). With regard to precursor 

regulation under section 189(e), the 

General Preamble explicitly stated that 

control of VOCs under other Act 

requirements may suffice to relieve a 

state from the need to adopt precursor 

controls under section 189(e). See 57 FR 

13542. EPA in this rulemaking proposes 

to determine that even if not explicitly 

addressed by the State in its submission, 

the State does not need to take further 

action with respect to ammonia and 

VOCs as precursors to satisfy the 

requirements of section 189(e). This 

proposed determination is based on our 

findings that: (1) The Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

contains no major stationary sources of 

ammonia, and (2) existing major 

stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.15 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the Area, which is 

attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area. See 57 FR 13539. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but rather the 

rule assesses SIP plans and control 

measures required to bring a 

nonattainment area into attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, 

redesignation to attainment primarily 

requires the area to have already 

attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring the State to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.16 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.17 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area has already attained the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current 

approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Alabama’s request for 

redesignation of the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. In the 

context of a redesignation, Alabama has 

shown that the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area (of which Jackson County is a part) 

has attained the standard. Moreover, the 

State has shown, and EPA has proposed 

to determine, that attainment in this 

Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment. It follows 

logically that no further control of 

additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the court as 

precluding redesignation of the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area to attainment for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In 

sum, even if Alabama were required to 

address precursors for Chattanooga TNGA Area under subpart 4 rather than 

under subpart 1, EPA would still 

conclude that the Alabama portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area had met 

all applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

f. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area, in evaluating the effect of 

the court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this proposal is also considering 

the impact of the decision on the 

maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, EPA notes that the Area has 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and that the State has shown that 

attainment of that standard is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

State’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standard 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. EPA therefore 

believes that the only additional 

consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by 

Alabama and supporting information, 

EPA believes that the maintenance plan 

for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area need not 

include any additional emission 

reductions of VOC or ammonia in order 

to provide for continued maintenance of 

the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the portion of 

Jackson County in the Chattanooga TNVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:13 Nov 10, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12NOP1.SGM 12NOP1

TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67151 

18These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the regulatory 

impact analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 19The RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS standard 

can be found on EPA’s Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalria.pdf. 

GA Area are estimated to be 

approximately 1,820.86 tons per year in 

2020, a slight increase over 2007 levels. 

See Table 7 below. As described below, 

available information shows that no 

precursor, including VOC and ammonia, 

is expected to increase significantly over 

the maintenance period so as to 

interfere with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (tpy) FOR THE

ALABAMA PORTION OF THE CHATTANOOGA TN-GA AREA 18

Source sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net 

change 2007 2020 Net change 

Nonpoint ....................................................................................... 712 .30 685 .66 ¥26 .6 1,552 .38 1,745 .57 193 .19 

Nonroad ....................................................................................... 1,318 .58 563 .98 ¥754 .6 0 .94 1 .01 0 .07 

Onroad ......................................................................................... 1,005 .61 327 .77 ¥677 .84 40 .43 21 .54 ¥18 .89 

Point ............................................................................................. 142 .71 161 .74 19 .03 74 .24 52 .74 ¥21 .5 

Total ...................................................................................... 3,179 .20 1,739 .15 ¥1,440 .05 1,668 .00 1,820 .86 152 .86 

Alabama’smaintenance plan shows 

that emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5

are projected to decrease over the 

maintenance period in the Alabama 

Portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA Area 

by 22,287.4 tpy, 15,020.16, and 220.45 

tpy, respectively. See Table 6, above. In 

addition, emissions inventories used in 

the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 19 show that 

VOC emissions are projected to decrease 

by 1,440.05 tpy, and the ammonia 

emissions are projected to increase by 

152.86 tpy between 2007 and 2020. 

Although ammonia emissions are 

projected to increase slightly between 

2007 and 2020, the decrease in 

emissions of other precursors in 

comparison will keep the Area well 

below the standard. See Table 6 and 7, 

above. While the RIA emissions 

inventories are only projected out to 

2020, there is no reason to believe that 

this overall downward trend would not 

continue through 2025. Given that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area is already 

attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS even with the current level of 

emissions from sources in the Area, the 

overall trend of emissions inventories 

would be consistent with continued 

attainment. Indeed, projected emissions 

reductions for the precursors that the 

State is addressing for purposes of the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS indicate 

that the Area should continue to attain 

the NAAQS following the precursor 

control strategy that the State has 

already elected to pursue. Even if VOC 

and ammonia emissions were to 

increase unexpectedly between 2020 

and 2025, the overall emission 

reductions projected in SO2, NOX, and 

PM2.5 would be sufficient to offset any 

increases. For these reasons, EPA 

believes that local emissions of all the 

potential PM2.5 precursors will not 

increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard during 

the maintenance period. 

In addition, available air quality data 

and modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. As noted in section 

V, above, the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

recorded a PM2.5 design value of 10.5 

mg/m3 during 2011–2013, the most 

recent three years available with 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air monitoring data. This is 

well below the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3. Moreover, the 

modeling analysis conducted for the 

RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

indicates that the design value for this 

area is expected to continue to decline 

through 2020. Given the decrease in 

overall precursor emissions projected 

through 2025, it is reasonable to 

conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in 

this area will also continue to decrease 

through 2025. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area should be redesignated, even 

taking into consideration the emissions 

of VOC and ammonia potentially 

relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of 

the D.C. Circuit’s January 4, 2013, 

decision, and for the reasons set forth in 

this notice, EPA continues to propose 

approval of the State’s maintenance 

plan and its request to redesignate the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area to attainment for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s proposed regional on-road 

motor vehicle insignificance 

determination for the Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

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

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans in 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67152 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

20 In the March 24, 2010, final rule (75 FR 14260), 

provisions for insignificance determinations were 

outlined in 40 CFR 93.109(m). EPA revised 40 CFR 

93.109 in its March 14, 2012, final rule (77 FR 

14979), and the provisions for insignificance 

determinations are now located at 40 CFR 93.109(f). 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEB is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions in the 

maintenance demonstration that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. 

The MVEB serves as a ceiling on 

emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEB. 

Today’s action addresses the element 

regarding on-road motor vehicle 

emissions and the requirement to 

establish MVEB. EPA is proposing to 

find that the direct PM2.5 and NOX

emission contribution from motor 

vehicles in the Alabama portion of the 

Area are insignificant to the air 

pollution in the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area. The result of this determination, 

if finalized, is that Alabama will not 

need to develop MVEB for direct PM2.5

and NOX for the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area and the 

Metropolitan Planning Organization or 

Department of Transportation 

(whichever is applicable) will not need 

to perform a regional emissions analysis 

for either pollutant when it 

demonstrates conformity. See below for 

further information on the 

insignificance determination. 

Regional on-road motor vehicle 

insignificance. For motor vehicle 

emissions budgets to be approvable, 

they must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

In certain instances, the Transportation 

Conformity Rule allows areas to forgo 

establishment of a MVEB where it is 

demonstrated that the regional motor 

vehicle emissions for a particular 

pollutant or precursor are an 

insignificant contributor to the air 

quality problem in an area. The general 

criteria for insignificance 

determinations can be found in 40 CFR 

93.109(f). Insignificance determinations 

are based on a number of factors, 

including (1) the percentage of motor 

vehicle emissions in context of the total 

SIP inventory; (2) the current state of air 

quality as determined by monitoring 

data for that NAAQS; (3) the absence of 

SIP motor vehicle control measures; and 

(4) historical trends and future 

projections of the growth of motor 

vehicle emissions. EPA’s rationale for 

providing for insignificance 

determinations is described in the July 

1, 2004, revision to the Transportation 

Conformity Rule at 69 FR 40004.20

Specifically, the rationale is explained 

on page 40061 under the subsection 

entitled ‘‘XXIII.B. Areas With 

Insignificant Motor Vehicle Emissions.’’ 

Any insignificance determination under 

review by EPA is subject to the 

adequacy and approval process for 

EPA’s action on the SIP. 

Through the adequacy and SIP 

approval process, EPA may find that a 

SIP demonstrates that regional motor 

vehicle emissions are an insignificant 

contributor to the air quality problem 

for the pollutant or precursor at issue. 

Upon the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy determination, federal 

regulations no longer require a regional 

emissions analysis (for the purpose of 

transportation conformity 

implementation) for the relevant 

insignificant pollutant or precursor. 

Areas with insignificant regional motor 

vehicle emissions for a pollutant or 

precursor are still required to make a 

conformity determination that satisfies 

other relevant conformity requirements. 

Additionally, such areas are required to 

satisfy the regional emissions analysis 

requirements for pollutants or 

precursors for which EPA has not made 

a determination of insignificance. 

The maintenance plan for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area, included as part of the SIP 

revision, contains a regional on-road 

motor vehicle insignificance 

determination for the direct PM2.5 and 

NOX contribution of motor vehicles in 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area to the air quality problem 

in the Chattanooga TN-GA Area. As part 

of the preparation for its redesignation 

request, Alabama used the on-road 

emissions of PM2.5 and NOX from motor 

vehicles in that portion of Jackson 

County, from the document titled 

‘‘Chattanooga Non-Attainment Area 

Year 2030 Conformity Determination 

Report.’’ In order to estimate on-road 

mobile source emissions for the 

nonattainment portion of Jackson 

County, a ratio of the size of the 

nonattainment portion of Jackson 

County in square miles to the size of the 

entire county in square miles was 

calculated. The nonattainment portion 

of Jackson County was determined to be 

only about one percent of the total area 

of Jackson County. The same rational 

was applied to obtain area and non-road 

mobile source emissions for the 

nonattainment portion for the county. 

Alabama determined that direct PM2.5

and NOX emissions from on-road mobile 

sources in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area are 0.2 

percent, and 0.18 percent, respectively, 

of the total emissions from on-road 

mobile source in the entire Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area for 2007, 2017, and 2025. 

The information provided by Alabama 

supports EPA’s proposal to determine 

that the direct PM2.5 and NOX

contribution from on-road vehicles in 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area are insignificant to the 

PM2.5 air pollution the Chattanooga TNGA Area. As shown in Tables 2 through 

6 above, Alabama’s maintenance plan 

demonstrates that on-road direct PM2.5

emissions and NOX emissions will 

continue to decrease through 2025, the 

end of the initial maintenance plan for 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area. In addition, since 2007, 

the PM2.5 design value concentration 

has decreased by approximately 15 

percent such that the Area is now 

attaining the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with 

a 2011–2013 design value of 10.5 mg/m3, 

well below the standard of 15.0 mg/m3. 

According to information provided by 

Alabama, point sources contributed over 

99 percent of the emissions in future 

years in the Alabama portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA Area. The 

maintenance plan does not contain any 

control measures that apply to on-road 

motor vehicles. 

After evaluating the information 

provided by Alabama and weighing the 

factors for the insignificance 

determination outlined in 40 CFR 

93.109(f), EPA is now proposing to 

approve Alabama’s determination that 

the direct PM2.5 and NOX contribution 

from motor vehicle emissions in the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

Area are insignificant to the pollution 

problem in the Chattanooga TN-GA 

Area. EPA’s insignificance 

determination should be considered and 

specifically noted in the transportation 

conformity documentation that is 

prepared for the Area. EPA is proposing 

that the submitted insignificance 

finding is consistent with maintenance 

of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

through 2025. 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the on-road 

motor vehicle insignificance 

determination for the Alabama portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA area? 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEB and/or insignificance 

determinations, EPA may affirmatively 

find the MVEB and/or insignificance 

determination contained therein 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 67153 

21The Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area already has an adequate insignificance 

finding for its previously-submitted attainment 

demonstration. 

adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB 

is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, that MVEB must 

be used by state and federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. Further, once EPA affirmatively 

finds the submitted insignificance 

determination is adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, the 

transportation partners are relieved of 

performing a regional emissions 

analysis of that pollutant or precursor 

but must document the insignificance 

determination in its conformity 

determination. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of an MVEB and/ 

or insignificance determination are set 

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

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: Public notification of 

a SIP submission, a public comment 

period, and EPA’s adequacy 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEB for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

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

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments: 

Response to Court Decision and 

Additional Rule Changes,’’ 68 FR 38974, 

38984 (June 30, 2003). 

As discussed earlier, Alabama’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

an insignificance determination that 

direct PM2.5 and NOX emissions from 

on-road motor vehicles are an 

insignificant contributor to the air 

quality problem in the Chattanooga TNGA Area. The Alabama maintenance SIP 

submission, including the on-road 

motor vehicle insignificance finding, 

was open for public comment on EPA’s 

adequacy Web site found at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period closed on October 22, 

2014. EPA did not receive any 

comments on the adequacy of the 

insignificance determination, nor did 

EPA receive any requests for the SIP 

revision. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

insignificance finding for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

for transportation conformity purposes 

in the near future. Section 93.109(f) 

states that a regional emissions analysis 

is no longer necessary if EPA finds 

through the adequacy or approval 

process that a SIP demonstrates that 

regional motor vehicle emissions are an 

insignificant contributor to the air 

quality problem for that pollutant/

precursor. A finding of insignificance 

does not change the requirement for a 

regional analysis for other pollutants 

and precursors and does not change the 

requirement for hot-spot analysis. After 

EPA finds the insignificance 

determination adequate or approves it, 

this on-road motor vehicle 

insignificance finding for direct PM2.5

and NOX applies to future 

transportation conformity 

determinations.21

IX. Proposed Actions on the 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revision for the 

Alabama Portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area 

On May 31, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Chattanooga TN-GA Area was 

attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. See 76 FR 31239. EPA is now 

taking two separate but related actions 

regarding the Area’s redesignation and 

maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

First, EPA is proposing to determine 

that, based upon review of complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

period, and review of data in AQS for 

2010 through 2013 that the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area continues to attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area has met the criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s redesignation request for the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan for the Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area 

as meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the portion of 

Jackson County in the Chattanooga TNGA Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81 from 

nonattainment to attainment. EPA is 

also proposing to approve, into the 

Alabama SIP, the maintenance plan for 

the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA Area. 

X. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of Alabama’s 

redesignation request would change the 

legal designation of a portion of Jackson 

County in Alabama for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Approval of the ADEM’s request would 

also incorporate a plan for maintaining 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA Area through 2025 into the Alabama 

SIP. This maintenance plan includes 

contingency measures to remedy any 

future violations of the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures for 

evaluation of potential violations. 

Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of its adequacy 

determination for the NOX and PM2.5

insignificance pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1). 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
67154 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

action[s]’’ subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 a 

significant economic impact 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 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 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26736 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0765; FRL–9918–62– 

Region 6] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation 

of Authority to Arkansas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve, through a ‘‘direct final’’ 

procedure, a request for delegation of 

the Federal air toxics program contained 

within 40 CFR Parts 63 pursuant to 

Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (Act). 

The State’s mechanism of delegation 

involves the straight delegation of 

certain existing and future Section 112 

standards unchanged from the Federal 

standards. The actual delegation of 

authority of individual standards, 

except standards addressed specifically 

in this action, will occur through a 

mechanism set forth in a memorandum 

of agreement (MOA) between the 

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) and EPA. ADEQ is 

requesting delegation and approval to 

implement and enforce the existing Part 

63 standards as they apply to Part 70 

sources, including major and area 

sources subject to the Title V (Part 70) 

permitting requirements. The delegation 

of authority under this action does not 

include CAA Section 112(r). 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received on or 

before December 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 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: Mr. 

Rick Barrett, (214) 665–7227, 

barrett.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving ADEQ’s 

request for delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce certain 

NESHAPs for all sources which are 

subject to part 70 as a direct rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as noncontroversial 

action and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for this 

proposed 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. 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 rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: October 14, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25947 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0011; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AZ44 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Western Distinct 

Population Segment of the YellowBilled Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On August 15, 2014, we, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

announced a proposal to designate 

critical habitat for the western distinct 

population segment of the yellow-billed 

cuckoo under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We now 

announce a reopening of the comment 

period for our August 15, 2014, 

proposed rule to allow for us to accept 

and consider additional public 

comments on the proposed rule. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on August 15, 

2014 (79 FR 48548), is reopened. We 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS