Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16331 

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. 

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 during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814–2084, or by 

email at Duke.Gerallyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: March 10, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06964 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0904; FRL–9925–14– 

Region 4] 

Approval of Implementation Plans and 

Designation of Areas; Tennessee; 

Redesignation of the Tennessee 

Portion of the Chattanooga, 1997 PM2.5

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 13, 2014, the 

State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a 

request to redesignate the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area is comprised of 

Hamilton County in Tennessee. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve the 

redesignation request and the related 

SIP revision, including TDEC’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard, for the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. EPA 

is also proposing to approve into the 

Tennessee SIP the motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 for the year 

2025 for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. In 

separate actions, EPA approved the 

redesignation requests and associated 

maintenance plans for the Alabama and 

Georgia portions of this Area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0904, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0904, 

Air Regulatory Management Section 

(formerly the Regulatory Development 

Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch (formerly 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. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 

0904. EPA policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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

determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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. 

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 that 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. 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joydeb Majumder of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, in the Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

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 Tennessee’s 

proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL area? 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

area? 

IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan SIP 

Revisions Including Approval of the 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the 

Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is 

continuing to attain the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS 1 and to take additional 

actions related to Tennessee’s request to 

redesignate the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, which is 

summarized as follows and described in 

greater detail throughout this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. EPA proposes: (1) 

To redesignate the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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), Tennessee’s 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS maintenance plan, including 

the associated MVEBs, for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area into the Tennessee SIP. 

First, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 Hamilton County in 

Tennessee, located within the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

maintenance plan for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

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-AL Area in 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS through 2025. The maintenance 

plan that EPA is proposing to approve 

today includes on-road MVEBs for 

direct PM2.5 and NOX for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area for transportation conformity 

purposes. EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2025 MVEBs into the Tennessee SIP 

that are included as part of Tennessee’s 

maintenance plan for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Further, EPA proposes to make the 

determination that the Chattanooga TNGA-AL Area is continuing to attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that all 

other redesignation criteria have been 

met for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The bases 

for EPA’s determination for the Area are 

discussed in greater detail below. EPA 

is also providing the public an update 

of the status of EPA’s adequacy process 

for the 2025 MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX

for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Please see 

Section VIII of this proposed rulemaking 

for further explanation of this process 

and for more details. 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to 

Tennessee’s November 13, 2014, SIP 

revision, which requests redesignation 

of the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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. In separate actions, EPA approved 

the redesignation requests and 

associated maintenance plans for the 

Alabama and Georgia portions of the 

Area. See 79 FR 76235 (December 22, 

2014) and 79 FR 75748 (December 19, 

2014), respectively. 

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 

annualmean 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 Hamilton County in 

Tennessee, in association with counties 

in Alabama and Georgia in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16333 

2006, designating counties in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 

58688. That action also clarified that 

Hamilton County in the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area was classified 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not 

promulgate designations for the 2006 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS because that 

NAAQS was essentially identical to the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, 

Hamilton County in the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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. This 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 document. 

The 3-year ambient air quality data for 

2007–2009 indicated no violations of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. As a 

result, on November 13, 2014, 

Tennessee requested redesignation of 

the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS had been achieved for the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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-AL Area’s design value, based 

on data from 2007 through 2009, is 

below 15.0 mg/m3, which demonstrates 

attainment of the standard. While 

Annual PM2.5 concentrations are 

dependent on a variety of conditions, 

the overall improvement in annual 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area can be attributed to the reduction 

of pollutant emissions, as 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 document. 

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 

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 November 13, 2014, TDEC 

requested the redesignation of the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee portion of this 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 

both the NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs 

for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. 

Additionally, EPA is also proposing to 

approve the MVEBs for both NOX and 

direct PM2.5 that were included in 

Tennessee’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 Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) approve into the 

Tennessee SIP the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS maintenance plan, including 

the associated MVEBs, for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area. Further, EPA proposes 

to make the determination that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues 

to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and that all other redesignation criteria 

have been met for the Tennessee portion 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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-GAAL 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-AL 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-AL 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-AL Area for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007– 

2009. These data had been qualityassured 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-AL 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-AL Area are below 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL 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 * 12.5 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 11.6 11.2 11.1 10.1 

Soddy-Daisy High School, 

Tennessee.

Hamilton County, Tennessee.470651011 11.1 10.7 11.0 11.2 9.8 

* Values subject to data substitution (76 FR 15895 (March 22, 2011)). 

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 Tennessee based its 

redesignation request (2007–2009) for 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 TNGA-AL Area. See 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 

2011). EPA has reviewed more recent 

data which indicate that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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, TDEC 

has committed to continue monitoring 

in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58. 

Criteria (5) —Tennessee Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA; and Criteria 

(2)—Tennessee Has a Fully Approved 

SIP Under Section 110(k) for the 

Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee has met all 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area under section 110 of 

the CAA (general SIP requirements) for 

purposes of redesignation. Additionally, 

EPA proposes to find that the Tennessee 

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 Tennessee Portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16335 

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 document. However, the Clean 

Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was 

not at issue in that case. 

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 August 2, 2012, EPA approved all 

infrastructure SIP elements required 

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

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the 

exception of the visibility element 

under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also 

known as ‘‘prong 4’’). See 77 FR 45958. 

EPA approved prong 4 for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on May 7, 2014. 

See 79 FR 26143. 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 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area. 

Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable 

SIP requirements. EPA proposes to 

determine that the Tennessee SIP meets 

the applicable SIP requirements for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 

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); 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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

(5th Cir. 2002). 

Therefore, because attainment has 

been reached in the Chattanooga TNGA-AL 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. The 

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-AL Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, 

because the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

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 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. On February 8, 2012, EPA 

approved Tennessee’s 2002 base-year 

emissions inventory for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area as part of the SIP revision 

submitted by TDEC 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.’’ 

Tennessee has demonstrated that the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area will be able to maintain 

the NAAQS without part D NSR in 

effect, and therefore Tennessee need not 

have fully approved part D NSR 

programs prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. Tennessee’s PSD 

program will become effective in the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee 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. 

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 Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has 

satisfied all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

b. The Tennessee Portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Has a 

Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

Tennessee SIP for the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 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, Tennessee 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 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area (e.g., 77 FR 45958, 

August 2, 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 TNGA-AL 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 

Tennessee has demonstrated that the 

observed air quality improvement in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16337 

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. 

sources and are composed of many 

different compounds. In the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 in 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 was 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 

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. See 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6The air quality modeling analysis for the CSAPR 

rulemaking did not identify any of the four 

monitors in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as 

receptors. 

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

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

Case No. 11–1302, Document No. 

1518738. EPA subsequently issued an 

interim final rule amending the Code of 

Federal Regulations to correctly reflect 

the compliance deadlines for CSAPR as 

revised by the effect of the Court’s order 

granting EPA’s motion to lift the stay of 

CSAPR and delay its deadlines by three 

years. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 

2014). These amendments make clear 

that, consistent with the Court’s order, 

compliance with CSAPR’s Phase 1 

emissions budgets is now required in 

2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 

2013) and compliance with the rule’s 

Phase 2 emissions budgets and 

assurance provisions is now required in 

2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and 

beyond). 

EPA approved a modification to 

Tennessee’s SIP on November 25, 2009, 

that addressed the requirements of CAIR 

for the purpose of reducing SO2 and 

NOX emissions (see 74 FR 61535), and 

Tennessee’s SIP redesignation request 

lists CAIR/CSAPR as a control measure. 

CAIR was in place and getting emission 

reductions when the Chattanooga TNGA-AL 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 TNGA-AL 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– 

40 and B–59.6 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 and EPA has made 

ministerial amendments to CSAPR 

consistent with the Court’s order. 

Therefore, to the extent that these 

transport rules impact attainment of the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, any 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR that helped the Chattanooga TNGA-AL 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 Tennessee Portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, TDEC 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, TDEC 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

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 proposes to 

find that TDEC’s maintenance plan 

includes all the necessary components 

and is thus proposing to approve it as 

a revision to the Tennessee SIP. 

b. CAA 175 Maintenance Plan 

Requirements 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on monitoring data for the 3-year 

period from 2007–2009. TDEC 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. TDEC 

began development of the attainment 

inventory by first generating a baseline 

emissions inventory for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area. 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 2010, 2013, 

2016, 2019, 2022, 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 projected 

annual emissions from point and area 

sources were determined by applying 

Economic Growth Analysis System 

version 5.0 for Hamilton County to 

respective attainment year emissions. 

The projected annual emissions from 

onroad mobile sources within Hamilton 

County for 2025 were determined by 

using the MOVES2010b model. 

Projected annual emissions from 

nonroad mobile sources within 

Hamilton County were determined by 

using the NONROAD2008a model. The 

2007 SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions for 

the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 November 13, 2014, final 

submittal includes a maintenance plan 

for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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, NOX, and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16339 

PM2.5 will remain below 2007 emission 

levels. 

(ii) Uses 2007 as the attainment year 

and includes future emission inventory 

projections for 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 

2022, and 2025. 

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

years after EPA review and potential 

approval of the maintenance plan. Per 

40 CFR part 93, NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs 

were established for the last year (2025) 

of the maintenance plan. 

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

4, 5, and 6 below, the actual and 

projected emissions inventories, in tpy, 

for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. 

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

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

SO2 ........................................................... 919.2 797.5 808.1 798.0 819.4 842.1 865.6 

NOX .......................................................... 2,437.2 2,484.1 2,575.6 2,650.6 2,811.6 2,982.2 3,154.6 

PM2.5 ........................................................ 160.2 156.3 158.2 169.2 180.7 193.1 205.8 

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

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

SO2 ........................................................... 332.6 346.7 363.2 382.9 401.1 420.6 441.1 

NOX .......................................................... 3,415.1 3,638.0 3,835.2 4,089.8 4,348.5 4,609.0 4,880.6 

PM2.5 ........................................................ 875.4 916.6 955.8 1,001.2 1,042.6 1,083.6 1,121.9 

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

THE CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

SO2 ........................................................... 87.6 77.1 66.5 56.0 45.5 34.9 24.4 

NOX .......................................................... 11,465.2 9,972.4 8,479.7 6,986.9 5,494.2 4,001.5 2,508.7 

PM2.5 ........................................................ 395.1 342.0 288.9 235.8 182.7 129.6 79.5 

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

THE CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

SO2 ........................................................... 99.3 25.9 15.2 14.2 14.7 15.3 15.9 

NOX .......................................................... 1,792.1 1,562.6 1,264.3 1,003.4 833.6 730.8 675.2 

PM2.5 ........................................................ 153.6 141.6 123.7 101.0 82.4 70.4 63.5 

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

CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 

SO2 ........................................................... 1,438.8 1,247.2 1,253.2 1,251.1 1,280.7 1,312.9 1,346.9 

NOX .......................................................... 19,109.5 17,657.2 16,154.7 14,730.8 13,487.9 12,323.4 11,219.1 

PM2.5 ........................................................ 1,584.3 1,556.5 1,526.6 1,507.3 1,488.4 1,476.7 1,467.8 

Table 2 shows a slight increase of 

NOX, and PM2.5 from point sources, and 

Table 3 indicates a slight increase of 

NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 from nonpoint 

emission sources. Table 6 reflects the 

overall emissions from all source 

categories in the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL. Overall 

emissions from all source categories 

combined for all three pollutants, NOX, 

SO2, and PM2.5, are projected to 

decrease from 2007 to 2025. In 

situations where local emissions are the 

primary contributor to nonattainment, 

such as the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

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 proposes to find that the 

overall emission projections illustrate 

that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is 

expected to continue to attain the 1997 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16340 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7 In separate actions, EPA approved the 

redesignation requests and associated maintenance 

plans for the Alabama and Georgia portions of the 

Area. See 79 FR 76235 (December 22, 2014) and 79 

FR 75748 (December 19, 2014), respectively. 

Therefore, EPA does not believe that projected 

emissions from those portions of the Area present 

a maintenance problem for air quality in the Area 

as a whole. 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.7

Emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are 

projected to decline by 6.4 percent, 41.3 

percent and 7.4 percent, respectively, 

from 2007 to 2025. 

A maintenance plan requires the state 

to show that projected future year 

overall emissions will not exceed the 

level of emissions which led the Area to 

attain the NAAQS. For the reasons 

discussed above, EPA preliminarily 

agrees that Tennessee’s projected 

emissions demonstrate that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area will 

continue to attain for the duration of the 

maintenance plan. 

3. Monitoring Network 

There are currently three monitors 

measuring ambient PM2.5 in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. TDEC has 

committed to continue operation of the 

monitors in the Tennessee portion of 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

have thus addressed the requirement for 

monitoring. EPA approved Tennessee’s 

2013 monitoring plan on November 14, 

2013. In addition, there is currently one 

monitor measuring ambient PM2.5 in the 

Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TNGA-AL Area. Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division (GA EPD) has 

committed to continue operation of the 

monitor in the Georgia portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in 

compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and has 

thus addressed the requirement for 

monitoring. On December 19, 2014, EPA 

approved GA EPD’s submittal to 

redesignate the Georgia portion of 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 

75748. There is no monitor in the 

Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TNGA-AL Area. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

TDEC has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area 

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. 

TDEC will track the progress of the 

maintenance plan by performing future 

reviews of triennial emission 

inventories for the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as 

required in the Air Emissions Reporting 

Rule (AERR) and Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). For 

these periodic inventories, TDEC 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 TDEC will re-project 

emissions for the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 the state. 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). 

TDEC has identified the following 

possible means for providing further 

reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and/or 

its significant precursors as contingency 

measures for emission sources within 

Hamilton County: 

• Reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) for point sources of 

PM2.5 emissions not already covered by 

RACT, best available control 

technology, or reasonable and proper 

emission limitations; 

• RACM for area sources of PM2.5

emissions; 

• RACT for major point-sources of 

NOX emissions; 

• RACT for minor point-sources of 

NOX emissions; 

• RACM for area sources of NOX

emissions; 

• RACT for major point-sources of 

SO2 emissions; 

• RACT for minor point-sources of 

SO2 emissions; 

• RACM for area sources of SO2

emissions; and 

• Additional PM2.5, NOX, and/or SO2

emissions reduction measures yet to be 

identified. 

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. TDEC will use actual ambient 

monitoring data to determine whether a 

trigger event has occurred and when 

contingency measures should be 

implemented. 

An exceedance of the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3 at any 

federal reference method (FRM) monitor 

in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

maintenance area, based on qualityassured and certified monitoring data 

averaged over three consecutive 

calendar years, will trigger a 

comprehensive evaluation by TDEC to 

determine if contingency measures 

should be implemented. Furthermore, 

such an evaluation will also be triggered 

by the occurrence of any of the 

following conditions that may forewarn 

of a potential exceedance of the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

• An annual mean PM2.5

concentration (average of quarterlyaverage concentrations) of greater than 

or equal to 16.5 mg/m3 for the previous 

calendar year at any FRM monitor in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance 

area, based on quality-assured and 

certified monitoring data; 

• An annual mean PM2.5 (average of 

quarterly-average concentrations) of 

greater than or equal to 15.5 mg/m3 for 

each of the previous two consecutive 

calendar years at any FRM monitor in 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

maintenance area, based on the qualityassured and certified monitoring data; 

• Total emissions of PM2.5 in the most 

recent NEI for Hamilton County of 

greater than 2,059 tons, which is thirty 

percent more than the corresponding 

emissions for 2007, the attainment year; 

and 

• Total emissions of SO2 in the most 

recent NEI for Hamilton County of 

greater than 1,870 tons, which is thirty 

percent more than the corresponding 

emissions for 2007. 

Upon occurrence of a contingency 

measure trigger, the required 

comprehensive evaluation will be 

conducted to determine the cause(s) of 

the elevated ambient PM2.5

concentrations or emissions inventory 

increase, to determine if an exceedance 

of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS is likely to 

occur or continue, and to determine 

whether or not the adoption and 

implementation of appropriate 

contingency measures is required for the 

further reduction of emissions of PM2.5

and/or its significant precursors within 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16341 

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. 

Hamilton County. The evaluation will 

examine: 

• Severity of the trigger condition; 

• Potentially contributing emissions 

from sources within Hamilton County; 

• Potentially contributing emissions 

resulting from regional or long-range 

transport; 

• Potentially contributing 

meteorological conditions, if applicable; 

• Emission trends for all source types; 

• Future emissions reductions from 

any adopted or planned regulations or 

initiatives; 

• Current and recently identified 

emissions control technologies 

applicable to considered contingency 

measures; 

• Emissions reduction potential of 

considered contingency measures; 

• Technical and economic feasibility 

of considered contingency measures; 

• Possible geographic limitations of 

considered contingency measures; and 

• Implementation timeline of 

considered contingency measures. 

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 TDEC for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area meets the requirements 

of section 175A of the CAA and 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 Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

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 Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area 

redesignation request and disregards the 

provisions of its 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule remanded by the 

Court, the State’s request for 

redesignation of the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area still 

qualifies for approval. EPA’s discussion 

takes into account the effect of the 

Court’s ruling on the maintenance plan 

for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee’s 

redesignation request for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

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 Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee submitted its 

redesignation request on November 13, 

2014, requirements under subpart 4 

were not due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Tennessee 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16342 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / 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’’). 

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

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

redesignation is discussed below. 

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 

Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area still 

qualifies for redesignation to attainment. 

As explained below, EPA believes that 

the redesignation request for the 

Tennessee 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 Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA Area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 PM10 9 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. 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, EPA is considering the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 

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, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16343 

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. 

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 document, 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 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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-AL 

Area, EPA believes that doing so is 

consistent with proposing redesignation 

of the area for the PM2.5 standard. The 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, 

EPA 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, EPA does 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16344 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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). 

findings that: (1) The Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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-AL 

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 EPA regards 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-AL 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 Tennessee’s request for 

redesignation of the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. In 

the context of a redesignation, 

Tennessee has shown that the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area 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 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Tennessee were required 

to address precursors for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, EPA would still conclude that 

the 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 Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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-AL 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 

Tennessee and supporting information, 

EPA believes that the maintenance plan 

for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

area are low, estimated to be 

approximately 370.9 tpy for 2007. 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16345 

18These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the regulatory 

impact analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

TENNESSEE PORTION OF THE AREA 18

Source sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 2007 2020 Net change 

Nonpoint ........................................................................... 5,338.9 5,372.1 33.3 194.2 202.0 7.8 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 2,383.3 1,213.3 ¥1170 2.7 3.1 0.4 

Onroad ............................................................................. 4,797.5 1,541.8 ¥3255.7 161.6 92.5 ¥69.1 

Point ................................................................................. 1,047.0 1,038.1 ¥8.9 12.5 12.5 0 

Total .......................................................................... 13,566.6 9,165.4 ¥4,401.2 370.9 310.1 ¥60.8 

Tennessee’s maintenance plan shows 

that emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5

are projected to decrease over the 

maintenance period in the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area by 91.9 tpy, 7,890.4 tpy and 116.5 

tpy, respectively. See Table 6 above. In 

addition, emissions inventories used in 

the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC 

emissions are projected to decrease by 

4,401.2 tpy and that ammonia emissions 

are projected to decrease by 60.8 tpy 

between 2007 and 2020. 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-AL Area is 

already attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS even with the current level of 

emissions from sources in the Area, the 

overall downward trend of emissions 

inventories is consistent with continued 

attainment. Even if VOC and ammonia 

emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, 

the overall emission reductions 

projected in SO2 and NOX 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 might 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-AL 

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 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 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL 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 document, EPA 

continues to propose approval of the 

State’s maintenance plan and its request 

to redesignate the Tennessee portion of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s proposed NOX and PM2.5

MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 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 for 

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 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEBs 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 MVEBs serves as a ceiling on 

emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEBs 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

Transportation Conformity Rule. See 58 

FR 62188. The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEBs. 

After interagency consultation with 

the transportation partners for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area, Tennessee has elected 

to develop MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5

for the entire nonattainment area. 

Tennessee has developed these MVEBs, 

as required, for the last year of its 

maintenance plan, 2025. The MVEBs 

reflect the total on-road emissions for 

2025, plus an allocation from the 

available NOX and PM2.5 safety margin. 

Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term ‘‘safety 

margin’’ is the difference between the 

attainment level (from all sources) and 

the projected level of emissions (from 

all sources) in the maintenance plan. 

The safety margin can be allocated to 

the transportation sector; however, the 

total emissions must remain below the 

attainment level. The NOX and PM2.5


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19 70 FR 24280, 24283 (May 6, 2005) (‘‘While 

speciated air quality data show that sulfate is a 

relatively significant component (e.g., ranging from 

nine to 40 percent) of PM2.5 mass in all regions of 

the country, emissions inventory data and 

projections show that on-road emissions of SOX

constitute a ‘‘de minimis’’ (i.e., extremely small) 

portion of total SOX emissions.’’). 

MVEBs and allocation from the safety 

margin were developed in consultation 

with the transportation partners and 

were added to account for uncertainties 

in population growth, changes in model 

vehicle miles traveled and new 

emission factor models. The NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area are 

defined in Table 8 below. 

TABLE 8—TENNESSEE PORTION OF

THE CHATTANOOGA TN-GA-AL 

AREA PM2.5 AND NOX MVEBS

[tpy] 

PM2.5 NOX

2025 Mobile Emissions 76.5 2,508.7 

2025 Safety Margin Allocated ....................... 23.5 691.3 

2025 Total Mobile 

Budget ................ 100.0 3,200.0 

In an effort to accommodate future 

variations in Travel Demand Models 

(TDM) and the vehicle miles traveled 

forecast when no change to the network 

is planned, TDEC consulted with the 

interagency consultation group, 

including EPA, to determine a 

reasonable approach to address this 

variation. The projected 2025 on-road 

motor vehicle emissions for direct PM2.5

and NOX are 76.5 tpy and 2,508.7 tpy, 

respectively. On-road emissions of SO2

are considered de-minimus; therefore, 

no budget for SO2 is required.19

A safety margin is necessary to 

accommodate the variabilities, or worstcase scenarios that can occur due to 

future planning assumptions. The 

worst-case daily motor vehicle 

emissions projection for PM2.5 is 23.5 

tpy above the projected 2025 on-road 

emissions. In a worst-case scenario, the 

needed annual safety margin for the 

PM2.5 MVEB would be 23.5 tpy resulting 

in an overall MVEB of 100.0 tpy. The 

worst-case daily motor vehicle 

emissions projection for NOX is 691.3 

tpy above the projected 2025 on-road 

emissions. In a worst-case scenario, the 

required annual safety margin for the 

NOX MVEB would be 691.3 tpy 

resulting in an overall MVEB of 3,200.0 

tpy. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for 

NOX and PM2.5 for 2025 for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area because EPA has 

determined that the Area maintains the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the 

emissions at the levels of the budgets. 

Once the MVEBs for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area are approved or found adequate 

(whichever is completed first), they 

must be used for future conformity 

determinations. After thorough review, 

EPA has determined that the budgets 

meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined 

in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to approve the budgets 

because they are consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS through 2025. 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 

2025 for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area? 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEB, EPA may 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB 

is adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, that MVEBs 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. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of MVEBs 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 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999, guidance entitled 

‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ EPA 

adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in rulemaking entitled 

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’’; 

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’’; 

June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38974, 38984). 

As discussed earlier, Tennessee’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area for 2025, the last year 

of the maintenance plan. EPA reviewed 

the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs through the 

adequacy process, and the adequacy of 

the MVEBs was open for public 

comment on EPA’s adequacy Web site 

on December 9, 2014, found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy for the 

MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area closed on January 8, 2015. EPA did 

not receive any comments on the 

adequacy of the MVEBs, nor did EPA 

receive any requests for the SIP 

submittal. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

2025 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for 

transportation conformity purposes in 

the near future by completing the 

adequacy process that was started on 

December 9, 2014. After EPA finds the 

2025 MVEBs adequate under 40 CFR 

93.118(f)(1)(iv) or take final action to 

approve them into the Tennessee SIP 

under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), the new 

MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 must be used 

for future transportation conformity 

determinations. For required regional 

emissions analysis years that involve 

2025 or beyond, the applicable budgets 

will be the new 2025 MVEBs 

established in the maintenance plan. 

IX. Proposed Actions on the 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions 

Including Approval of the NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee 

Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area 

On May 31, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Chattanooga TN-GA Area was 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 

FR 55774. 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-AL Area continues to attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area has met the criteria 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16347 

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 Tennessee’s 

redesignation request for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area, including the PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for 2025 submitted by 

Tennessee into the State’s SIP (under 

section 175A). The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all 

of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as 

part of today’s action, EPA is describing 

the status of its adequacy determination 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2025 

under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 

months from the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the MVEBs 

or the effective date for the final rule 

approving the MVEBs into the 

Tennessee SIP, whichever is earlier, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81 from 

nonattainment to attainment. 

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 

Tennessee’s redesignation request 

would change the legal designation of 

Hamilton County in Tennessee for the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. Approval of TDEC’s request 

would also incorporate a plan for 

maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area through 2025 into the Tennessee 

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 Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

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 do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• 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, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, 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: March 11, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06963 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[CS Docket No. 98–120; FCC 15–29] 

Carriage of Digital Television 

Broadcast Signals 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

Petition for Rulemaking filed by the 

American Cable Association (‘‘ACA’’) 

requesting, among other things, that the 

Commission extend for an additional 

three years the exemption from the 

requirement to carry high definition 

(‘‘HD’’) broadcast signals under the 

‘‘material degradation’’ provisions of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’) that it granted to 

certain small cable systems in the 2012 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS