74820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: December 10, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30449 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0762; FRL-9762–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Knox County Supplemental Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budget Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, a draft 

revision to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to 

EPA on October 12, 2012, by the State 

of Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC). Tennessee’s 

October 12, 2012, draft SIP revision 

includes changes to the maintenance 

plan for the Knox County 1-hour ozone 

area submitted on August 26, 1992, and 

approved by EPA on September 27, 

1993, and a subsequent SIP revision 

approved by EPA on August 5, 1997. 

The Knox County 1-hour ozone area was 

comprised of Knox County in its 

entirety. The October 12, 2012, draft 

revision proposes to increase the safety 

margin allocated to motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) for Knox County to 

account for changes in the emissions 

model and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

projection model. EPA is proposing 

approval of this draft SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0762 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–2012– 

0762,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, 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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling 

and Transportation Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Kelly 

Sheckler may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9222 or by electronic mail 

address sheckler.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Parallel Processing 

II. Background 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s SIP 

Revision 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Parallel Processing 

Consistent with EPA regulations 

found at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 

section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting 

review of a SIP submittal, parallel 

processing allows a state to submit a 

plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by 

the state. Generally, the state submits a 

copy of the proposed regulation or other 

revisions to EPA before going out for 

public comment. EPA reviews this 

proposed state action, and prepares a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking is 

published in the Federal Register 

during the same time frame that the 

state is holding its public process. The 

state and EPA then provide for 

concurrent public comment periods on 

both the state action and federal action. 

If the revision that is finally adopted 

and submitted by the state is changed in 

aspects other than those identified in 

the proposed rulemaking on the parallel 

process submission, EPA will evaluate 

those changes and if necessary and 

appropriate, issue another notice of 

proposed rulemaking. The final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been 

adopted by the state and submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. 

On October 12, 2012, the State of 

Tennessee, through TDEC submitted a 

request for parallel processing of a draft 

SIP revision that the State had already 

taken through public comment. TDEC 

requested parallel processing so that 

EPA could begin to take action on its 

draft SIP revision in advance of the 

State’s submission of the final SIP 

revision. As stated above, the final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been: (1) 

Adopted by Tennessee, (2) submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, 

including any changes made by the 

State after the October 12, 2012, draft 

was submitted to EPA. 

II. Background 

The Knox County, Tennessee, 1-hour 

ozone attainment and maintenance area 

is comprised of only Knox County in its 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74821 

1Subsequent to designating Knox County 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA 

has since designated Knox County as part of the 

larger Knoxville nonattainment area for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS (see 69 FR 23857, April 30, 

2004) and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 77 

FR 30160, May 21, 2012). This proposed action 

relates primarily to the MVEB established for Knox 

County for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and does not 

relate to the MVEB approved for 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Knoxville Area, nor does it relate 

to any pending MVEB that may be contemplated for 

the Knoxville Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

2A safety margin is the difference between the 

attainment level of emissions from all source 

categories (i.e., point, area, and mobile) and the 

projected level of emissions from all source 

categories. The State may choose to allocate some 

of the safety margin to the MVEB, for transportation 

conformity purposes, so long as the total level of 

emissions from all source categories remains equal 

to or less than the attainment level of emissions. 

entirety in Tennessee (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Knox County Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). Knox County Area was 

originally designated as marginal 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56694).1 Knox County was redesignated 

as attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS on September 27, 1993 (58 FR 

50271). In this approval, was a 10-year 

air quality maintenance plan covering 

the years 1994–2004. 

A subsequent revision to the Knox 

County Area maintenance plan was 

approved by EPA on August 5, 1997, 

that established MVEB for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

That plan satisfied the CAA requirement 

for a 10-year update of the Knox County 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan. 

Changes included revisions to the 

emissions inventory for both on-road 

and off-road mobile sources using the 

latest at that time, EPA approved mobile 

emissions and NONROAD models. New 

emissions data for both the new base 

year (attainment year) and the projected 

years (2004 and 2014) were calculated. 

The plan updated the 2004 MVEB and 

provided for a new MVEB for the year 

2014. EPA is now proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s October 12, 2012, revision 

to the safety margin for the previously 

approved MVEB. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s SIP 

Revision 

As discussed above, on October 12, 

2012, the State of Tennessee, through 

TDEC, submitted a SIP revision to revise 

the MVEB for Knox County in the Knox 

County 1-hour ozone maintenance plan 

to increase the safety margin as a result 

of new emissions model, VMT 

projection models, and other emission 

model input data. The MVEB (expressed 

in tons per day (tpd)) that are being 

updated through today’s action were 

originally approved by EPA on 

September 27, 1993, updated on August 

5, 1997, and are outlined in the table 

below. 

TABLE 1—ORIGINAL MVEB FOR KNOX

COUNTY FOR 2004 NOX

NOX .................. 29.24 tpd 22.12 tpd 

VOC .................. 33.89 tpd 31.71 tpd 

TDEC is currently allocating portions 

of the available safety margin 2 to the 

MVEB to account for new emissions 

models, VMT projections models, as 

well as changes to future vehicle mix 

assumptions, that influence the 

emission estimations. TDEC has now 

decided to allocate a majority of the 

safety margin available to the MVEB. 

Specifically, 7.97 tpd of the available 

VOC safety margin (15.94) is allocated 

to the 2004 MVEB, and 11.61 tpd for the 

available 2014 MVEB (23.22). 

Additionally, 2.79 tpd of the available 

NOX safety margin are allocated to the 

2004 MVEB and 18.43 tpd for the 2014 

MVEB. The remaining safety margin for 

VOC for 2004 is 7.97 tpd and for 2014 

is 11.61 tpd. As a result, there will be 

no safety margin remaining for NOX for 

2004 and 2014. 

The following tables provide the 

adjusted VOC and NOX emissions data, 

for the 2004 base attainment year 

inventories, as well as the projected 

VOC and NOX emissions inventory 

2014. 

TABLE 2—KNOX COUNTY TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPUNDS EMISSIONS

Year Area Non-road Biogenic Mobile Point Total 

Available 

saftey 

margin 

1990 ............................. 28.82 9.81 32.43 40.84 8.06 119.96 ........................

1993 ............................. 29.25 9.96 32.43 32.35 8.64 112.63 ........................

2004 ............................. 30.90 10.52 32.43 21.27 8.90 104.02 15.94 

2010 ............................. 31.84 10.84 32.43 13.93 9.76 98.80 ........................

2014 ............................. 32.48 11.06 32.43 19.51 10.26 96.74 23.22 

TABLE 3—KNOX COUNTY TOTAL NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS

Year Area Non-Road Biogenic Mobile Point Total Saftey 

Margin 

1990 ............................. 3.66 9.77 0 37.62 8.96 60.01 ........................

1993 ............................. 3.72 9.92 0 34.85 9.54 58.03 ........................

2004 ............................. 3.92 10.48 0 31.10 11.73 57.23 2.79 

2010 ............................. 4.04 10.79 0 19.99 12.53 47.35 ........................

2014 ............................. 4.13 11.01 0 13.27 13.17 41.58 18.43 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
74822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3EPA previously extended the grace period to use 

MOVES for regional emissions analysis in 

conformity determinations to March 2, 2013 (77 FR 

11394). 

TABLE 4—KNOX COUNTY NOX MVEB 

[tpd] 

2004 2014 

NOX Emissions 

Base Emissions ................ 57.23 41.48 

Safety Margin Allocated to 

MVEB ............................ 2.79 18.43 

NOX Conformity MVEB .... 36.68 50.14 

TABLE 5—KNOX COUNTY VOC MVEB 

[tpd] 

2004 2014 

VOC Emissions 

Base Emissions ................ 104.02 96.74 

Safety Margin Allocated to 

MVEB ............................ 7.97 11.61 

VOC Conformity MVEB .... 37.21 33.73 

Taking into consideration the portion 

of the safety margin applied to the 

MVEB, the resulting difference between 

the attainment level of emissions from 

all sources and the projected level of 

emissions from all sources in the 

maintenance area, the area still attains 

the NAAQS and meets the maintenance 

requirements. The new safety margins, 

are listed below in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—NEW SAFETY MARGINS FOR

THE KNOX COUNTY

Year VOC 

tpd 

NOX

tpd 

2004 .................................. 7.97 0 

2014 .................................. 11.61 0 

As shown in Tables 2 and 3 above, 

VOC and NOX total emissions in Knox 

County are projected to steadily 

decrease from 2004 to the maintenance 

year of 2014. This VOC and NOX

emission decrease demonstrates 

continued attainment/maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for ten years 

from 2004 (the year the Area was 

effectively designated attainment for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS) as required by 

the CAA. 

The revised MVEB that Tennessee 

submitted for the Knox County Area 

were developed with projected mobile 

source emissions derived using the 

MOBILE6 motor vehicle emissions 

model. This model was the most current 

model available at the time Tennessee 

was performing its analysis. However, 

EPA has now issued an updated motor 

vehicle emissions model known as 

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator or 

MOVES. In its announcement of this 

model, EPA established a two-year grace 

period for continued use of MOBILE6.2 

in regional emissions analyses for 

transportation plan and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) 

conformity determinations (extending to 

March 2, 2012),3 after which states 

(other than California) must use MOVES 

in conformity determinations for TIPs. 

As stated above, MOBILE6.2 was the 

applicable mobile source emissions 

model that was available when the 

original SIP was submitted. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s October 12, 2012, SIP 

revision concerning the Knox County 1- 

hour ozone maintenance plan and 

increasing the safety margin allocated to 

MVEB to account for changes in the 

emissions model and VMT projection 

model. This action, if finalized, would 

result in higher NOX and VOC MVEB for 

transportation conformity purposes for 

Knox County, and would still be 

consistent with attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing 

this action because it is consistent with 

the CAA and the transportation 

conformity requirements at 40 CFR 93. 

V. Statutory and Executive order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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 the State, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 7, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30358 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[WT Docket No. 11–69; Report No. 2970] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with