Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29027 

determined that this rule does not have 

implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such expenditure, we 

do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

establishment of a temporary safety 

zone. This rule is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security Measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T11–560 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–560 Safety Zone; Sea World San 

Diego Fireworks 2013 Season, Mission Bay; 

San Diego, CA. 

(a) Location. The safety zone will 

include the area within 600 feet of the 

fireworks barge in approximate position 

32°46′03′′ N, 117°13′11′′ W. 

(b) Enforcement period. This rule will 

be enforced from 8:50 p.m. on May 25, 

2013 to 10 p.m. on December 31, 2013. 

This rule will be enforced from 8:50 

p.m. to 10 p.m. on the following 

evenings; May 25 through May 27, June 

1, 2, 8, 9, and 13 through 30, July 1 

through 31, August 1 through 18, 

August 23 through 25, August 31, and 

September 1 through 2, November 15, 

and December 31, 2013. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

designated representative means any 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

of the Coast Guard on board Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, local, 

state, or federal law enforcement vessels 

who have been authorized to act on the 

behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance 

with general regulations in 33 CFR part 

165, Subpart C, entry into, transit 

through or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated representative. 

(2) Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Sector San Diego Command Center. The 

Command Center may be contacted on 

VHF–FM Channel 16. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: April 30, 2013. 

S. M. Mahoney, 

Captain, United States Coast Guard, Captain 

of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11828 Filed 5–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0044 (a); 

FRL–9814–5 ] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Transportation Conformity Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC), 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Bureau of Environment, Air Pollution 

Control Division (APCD), on July 12, 

2012. This revision consists of updates 

to transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures related to interagency 

consultation and enforceability of 

certain transportation-related control 

measures and mitigation measures. The 

intended effect is to update the 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures in the Tennessee SIP. This 

action is being taken pursuant to section 

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

July 16, 2013 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by June 17, 2013. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0044 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0044,’’ Air Quality Modeling and 

Transportation Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Amanetta 

Somerville or Kelly Sheckler, Air 

Quality Modeling and Transportation 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0044.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Quality 

Modeling and Transportation Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amanetta Somerville or Kelly Sheckler, 

Air Quality Modeling and 

Transportation Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Somerville’s telephone number is 404– 

562–9025. She can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

somerville.amanetta@epa.gov. Ms. 

Sheckler’s telephone number is 404– 

562–9222. She can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

sheckler.kelly@epa.gov. mailto: 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Transportation Conformity 

II. Background for this Action 

A. Federal Requirements 

B. Tennessee State Rule 

C. Chattanooga Conformity SIP 

D. Clarksville-Hopkinsville Conformity SIP 

E. Knoxville Conformity SIP 

F. Memphis Conformity SIP 

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘conformity’’) is required 

under section 176(c) of the CAA to 

ensure that federally supported highway 

projects, transit projects, and other 

activities are consistent with (conform 

to) the purpose of the SIP. Conformity 

currently applies to areas that are 

designated nonattainment, and to areas 

that have been redesignated to 

attainment after 1990 (maintenance 

areas) with plans developed under 

section 175A of the Act, for the 

following transportation related criteria 

pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter 

(e.g., PM2.5 and PM10), carbon 

monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide. 

Conformity to the purpose of the SIP 

means that transportation activities will 

not cause new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the relevant 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The 

transportation conformity regulation is 

found in 40 CFR part 93 and provisions 

related to conformity SIPs are found in 

40 CFR 51.390. 

II. Background for This Action 

A. Federal Requirements 

EPA promulgated the federal 

transportation conformity criteria and 

procedures (‘‘Conformity Rule’’) on 

November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188). 

Among other things, the rule required 

states to address all provisions of the 

conformity rule in their SIPs, frequently 

referred to as ‘‘conformity SIPs.’’ Under 

40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the 

conformity rule were required to be 

copied verbatim. States were also 

required to tailor all or portions of the 

following three sections of the 

conformity rule to meet their state’s 

individual circumstances: 40 CFR 

93.105, which addresses consultation 

procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), 

which addresses written commitments 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29029 

1LAMTPO is the MPO for Jefferson County. 

2 KRTPO’s planning boundary includes Knox 

County, and the urbanized areas of Blount, Loudon, 

and Sevier counties. 

to control measures that are not 

included in a metropolitan planning 

organization’s (MPO’s) transportation 

plan and transportation improvement 

program that must be obtained prior to 

a conformity determination, and the 

requirement that such commitments, 

when they exist, must be fulfilled; and 

40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses 

written commitments to mitigation 

measures that must be obtained prior to 

a project-level conformity 

determination, and the requirement that 

project sponsors must comply with such 

commitments, when they exist. 

On August 10, 2005, the ‘‘Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users’’ (SAFETEA–LU) was signed into 

law (Public Law 109–59). SAFETEA–LU 

revised section 176(c) of the CAA 

transportation conformity provisions. 

One of the changes streamlines the 

requirements for conformity SIPs. Under 

SAFETEA–LU, states are required to 

address and tailor only three sections of 

the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 

CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), 

and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), described above. 

In general, states are no longer required 

to submit conformity SIP revisions that 

address the other sections of the 

conformity rule. These changes took 

effect on August 10, 2005, when 

SAFETEA–LU was signed into law. 

B. Tennessee State Rule 

Previously, Tennessee established a 

transportation conformity SIP for the 

entire state. Specifically, on May 16, 

2003, EPA approved a SIP revision for 

the State of Tennessee which 

incorporated by reference 40 CFR part 

93 Subpart A, and customized 40 CFR 

93.105, 93.122 (a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c) 

for all of the MPOs in the entire state (68 

FR 26492). The conformity SIP revision 

(the subject of this rulemaking) removes 

any incorporation by reference and 

revises the procedures for consultation, 

conflict resolution and public 

participation to be consistent with the 

SAFETEA–LU revisions to the CAA and 

subsequent regulations published on 

January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4420). 

C. Chattanooga Conformity SIP 

Effective April 5, 2005, EPA 

designated Hamilton County in 

Tennessee, Walker and Catoosa 

Counties in Georgia, and a portion of 

Jackson County, Alabama in the tri-state 

Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia area 

(hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Chattanooga Area’’), as nonattainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

70 FR 944. The current designation 

status of the Chattanooga 1997 annual 

PM2.5 area is nonattainment. 

The States of Georgia and Alabama 

have established transportation 

conformity procedures for the counties 

that make up the Georgia and Alabama 

portion of the Chattanooga Area in their 

individual conformity SIPs. Tennessee’s 

July 2012 SIP revision includes the 

transportation conformity consultation, 

conflict resolution and public 

participation procedures for Hamilton 

County as part of the 1997 annual PM2.5

Chattanooga Area. 

D. Clarksville-Hopkinsville Conformity 

SIP 

Effective June 15, 2004, EPA 

designated Christian County, Kentucky 

and Montgomery County, Tennessee in 

the bi-state Clarksville-Hopkinsville, 

Tennessee-Kentucky area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘ClarksvilleHopkinsville Area’’), as nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 

69 FR 23857. The current designation 

status for the Clarksville-Hopkinsville 

Area is attainment and this area has an 

approved maintenance plan. 

The Commonwealth of Kentucky has 

established conformity procedures for 

Christian County that makes up the 

Kentucky portion of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville Area in its individual 

conformity SIP. Tennessee’s July 2012 

SIP revision updates the transportation 

conformity consultation, conflict 

resolution and public participation 

procedures for Montgomery County, 

Tennessee as part of the ClarksvilleHopkinsville Area. 

E. Knoxville Conformity SIP 

Effective June 15, 2004, EPA 

designated 6 whole counties and a 

portion of one county in the Knoxville, 

Tennessee area (hereafter referred to as 

the Knoxville Area), as nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 

69 FR 23857. The counties include 

Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, 

Loudon and Sevier counties and a 

portion of Cocke County. The current 

designation status of the Knoxville 1997 

8-hour ozone area is attainment, with an 

approved maintenance plan. Effective 

April 5, 2005, EPA designated 4 whole 

counties and a portion of one county in 

the Knoxville Area as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

counties include Anderson, Blount, 

Knox, Loudon counties and a portion of 

Roane County. See 70 FR 944. On 

November 13, 2009, EPA designated 4 

whole counties and a portion of one 

county in the Knoxville Area as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The counties include 

Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon 

counties and a portion of Roane County. 

See 74 FR 58688. Effective July 20, 

2012, EPA designated 1 whole county 

(i.e., Knox County) and two partial 

counties (i.e., Blount and Anderson 

counties) in the Knoxville Area as 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. The 

current designation status of the 

Knoxville Area for 1997 annual PM2.5,

2006 24-hour PM2.5, and the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is nonattainment. 

The Lakeway Area Metropolitan 

Transportation Planning Organization 

(LAMTPO) 1 and the Knoxville Regional 

Transportation Planning Organization 

(KRTPO) 2 are within the same 

maintenance area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. KRTPO is the MPO for 

most of the Knoxville 2008 8-hour 

ozone area and is the MPO for most of 

the Knoxville 1997 PM2.5 area. For the 

purposes of implementing 

transportation conformity for the 1997 

annual PM2.5, 1997 8-hour ozone and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, KRTPO 

served as the lead agency for the 

preparation, consultation, and 

distribution of the conformity 

determinations. Tennessee’s July 2012, 

SIP revision updates the transportation 

conformity consultation, conflict 

resolution and public participation 

procedures for the applicable Knoxville 

areas in relation to the 1997 annual 

PM2.5, 1997 8-hour ozone and 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

F. Memphis Conformity SIP 

Effective January 6, 1992, EPA 

designated Shelby County in the 

Memphis, Tennessee area as 

nonattainment for the carbon monoxide 

NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694. The current 

designation status of the area is 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for the carbon 

monoxide NAAQS. Effective June 15, 

2004, EPA designated Shelby County in 

Tennessee, and Crittenden County in 

Arkansas as nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. 

This entire area is known as the bi-state 

Memphis, Tennessee 1997 8-hour ozone 

area (hereafter referred to as the bi-state 

Memphis Area). The current designation 

status for the bi-state Memphis Area for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan. Effective July 20, 

2012, EPA designated 2 whole counties 

(i.e., Shelby County, Tennessee, and 

Crittenden County, Arkansas) and one 

partial county (i.e., DeSoto County, 

Mississippi) in the Memphis Area as 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. 

The Memphis MPO’s planning 

boundary includes Shelby County, 

Tennessee and a portion of DeSoto 

County, Mississippi. For the purposes of 

transportation conformity requirements 

related to the carbon monoxide, 1997 

8-hour ozone and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the Memphis MPO serves as 

the lead agency for the preparation, 

consultation, and distribution of the 

conformity determinations for the 

Tennessee and Mississippi portions of 

this Area. 

The State of Arkansas has established 

conformity procedures for Crittenden 

County which makes up the Arkansas 

portion of the bi-state Memphis Area in 

its individual conformity SIP. 

Mississippi is establishing 

transportation conformity procedures 

for the portion of Desoto County that is 

included in the Memphis nonattainment 

area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Tennessee’s July 2012 SIP revision 

updates the transportation conformity 

consultation, conflict resolution and 

public participation procedures for 

Shelby County, Tennessee as part of the 

Memphis Area. 

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation 

On July 12, 2012, the State of 

Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted 

updates to the State’s transportation 

conformity and consultation rule to EPA 

as a revision to the SIP. This SIP 

revision deleted the incorporation by 

reference to 40 CFR 93 Subpart A, 

established procedures for interagency 

consultation, conflict resolution and 

public participation, and included 

provisions for control and mitigation 

measures. This revised conformity SIP 

replaces the August 31, 2001, rule 

amendment that was approved by EPA 

on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492). 

The State of Tennessee developed its 

consultation rule based on the elements 

contained in 40 CFR 93.105. As a first 

step, the State worked with the existing 

transportation planning organization’s 

interagency committee that included 

representatives from the State air quality 

agency, State Department of 

Transportation (DOT), United States 

DOT (i.e., the Federal Highway 

Administration—Tennessee Division, 

and Federal Transit Administration), the 

MPOs of the maintenance and 

nonattainment areas of Tennessee, and 

EPA. The interagency committee met 

regularly and drafted the consultation 

rules considering elements in 40 CFR 

93.105, and integrated the local 

procedures and processes into the rule. 

The consultation process developed in 

this rule is for the areas of Tennessee 

described above. In addition, the 

conformity SIP includes the provision 

for written commitment for control 

measures and mitigation measures 

based on 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 

93.125(c), respectively. On October 20, 

2009, APCD held a public hearing for 

the transportation conformity 

rulemaking. 

EPA has evaluated this SIP and has 

determined that Tennessee has met the 

requirements of federal transportation 

conformity rule as described in 40 CFR 

Part 51, Subpart T and 40 CFR Part 93, 

Subpart A. APCD has satisfied the 

public participation and comprehensive 

interagency consultation requirement 

during development and adoption of the 

State Rule at the local level. Therefore, 

EPA is approving the rule as a revision 

to the Tennessee SIP. EPA’s rule 

requires the states to develop their own 

processes and procedures for 

interagency consultation among the 

federal, state, and local agencies and 

resolution of conflicts meeting the 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.105. The SIP 

revision must include processes and 

procedures to be followed by the MPO, 

state DOT, and U.S. DOT in consulting 

with the state and local air quality 

agencies and EPA before making 

conformity determinations. The 

transportation conformity SIP revision 

must also include processes and 

procedures for the state and local air 

quality agencies and EPA to coordinate 

the development of applicable SIPs with 

MPOs, state DOTs, and U.S. DOT. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal to 

assure consistency with the CAA as 

amended by SAFETEA–LU and EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR 

51.390) governing state procedures for 

transportation conformity and 

interagency consultation and has 

concluded that the submittal is 

approvable. Details of EPA’s review are 

set forth in a technical support 

document (TSD), which has been 

included in the docket for this action. 

Specifically, in the TSD, EPA identifies 

how the submitted procedures satisfy 

our requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 

for interagency consultation with 

respect to the development of 

transportation plans and programs, SIPs, 

and conformity determinations, the 

resolution of conflicts, and the 

provision of adequate public 

consultation, and the requirements 

under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 

93.125(c) for enforceability of control 

measures and mitigation measures. 

IV. Final Action 

For the reasons set forth above, EPA 

is taking action under section 110 of the 

Act to approve the rule implementing 

the conformity criteria and consultation 

procedures revision to the Tennessee 

SIP pursuant to the CAA, as a revision 

to the Tennessee SIP. As a result of this 

action, Tennessee’s previously SIPapproved conformity procedures for 

Tennessee (68 FR 26492, May 16, 2003), 

will be replaced by the procedures 

submitted to EPA on July 12, 2012, for 

approval and adopted by State of 

Tennessee on January 18, 2012. This 

action also establishes consultation 

procedures for all counties in 

Tennessee. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comments be filed. This 

rule will be effective July 16, 2013 

without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comments by 

June 17, 2013. 

If EPA receives such comments, then 

EPA will publish a document 

withdrawing the final rule and 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. All public comments 

received will then be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Parties 

interested in commenting should do so 

at this time. If no such comments are 

received, the public is advised that this 

rule will be effective on July 16, 2013 

and no further action will be taken on 

the proposed rule. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29031 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 16, 2013. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. See section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particular Matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: May 8, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart (RR)—(Tennessee) 

■ 2. In § 52.2220, table 1 in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising entry for 

‘‘1200–3–34.01’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Section 1200–3–34–.01 .......... Transportation Conformity 

Interagency Consultation 

and General Provisions.

4/17/2012 5/17/2013 [Insert citation of 

publication].

* * * * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
29032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–11677 Filed 5–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0888; FRL–9814–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans Tennessee: 

Revisions to Volatile Organic 

Compound Definition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve changes to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) on September 

3, 1999. Tennessee’s September 3, 1999, 

SIP adds 17 compounds to the list of 

compounds excluded from the 

definition of ‘‘Volatile Organic 

Compound’’ (VOC). EPA is approving 

this SIP revision because the State has 

demonstrated that it is consistent with 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective June 17, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0888. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

Tennessee’s September 3, 1999, SIP 

submission changes rule 1200–3–9-.01 

by adding a total of 17 compounds to 

the list of compounds excluded from the 

definition of VOC to be consistent with 

EPA’s definition of VOC at 40 CFR 

51.100(s). The SIP submittal is in 

response to EPA’s revision to the 

definition of VOC, (at 40 CFR 51.100(s)) 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 25, 1997 (62 FR 44900) and 

April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17331) adding the 

16 compounds listed below in Table— 

1 and the compound methyl acetate, 

respectively. These compounds were 

added to the exclusion list for VOC on 

the basis that they have a negligible 

effect on tropospheric ozone formation. 

The compounds were added by EPA 

through a rulemaking action which 

provided for public notice and 

comment. Today’s action approves a SIP 

revision to update the Tennessee SIP to 

be consistent with federal law. 

Tropospheric ozone, commonly 

known as smog, occurs when VOC and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) react in the 

atmosphere. Because of the harmful 

health effects of ozone, EPA limits the 

amount of VOC and NOX that can be 

released into the atmosphere. VOC are 

those compounds of carbon (excluding 

carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, 

carbonic acid, metallic carbides, or 

carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) 

which form ozone through atmospheric 

photochemical reactions. Compounds of 

carbon (or organic compounds) have 

different levels of reactivity; they do not 

react at the same speed, or do not form 

ozone to the same extent. It has been 

EPA’s policy that compounds of carbon 

with a negligible level of reactivity need 

not be regulated to reduce ozone (42 FR 

35314, July 8, 1977). EPA determines 

whether a given carbon compound has 

‘‘negligible’’ reactivity by comparing the 

compound’s reactivity to the reactivity 

of ethane. EPA lists these compounds in 

its regulations at 40 CFR 51.100(s), and 

excludes them from the definition of 

VOC. The chemicals on this list are 

often called ‘‘negligibly reactive.’’ EPA 

may periodically revise the list of 

negligibly reactive compounds to add 

compounds to or delete them from the 

list. 

TDEC’s September 3, 1999, SIP 

revision changes rule 1200–3–9–.01 to 

add a total of 17 compounds to the list 

of compounds excluded from the 

definition of VOC in accordance with 

the federal list of compounds designated 

as having negligible photochemical 

reactivity at 40 CFR 51.100(s). 

TABLE 1–16—COMPOUNDS ADDED TO THE LIST OF NEGLIGIBLY REACTIVE COMPOUNDS

Compound Chemical name 

HFC–32 ..................................................................................................................... Difluoromethane. 

HFC–161 ................................................................................................................... Ethylfluoride. 

HFC–236fa ................................................................................................................ 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane. 

HFC–245ca ............................................................................................................... 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane. 

HFC–245ea ............................................................................................................... 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane. 

HFC–245eb ............................................................................................................... 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane. 

HFC–245fa ................................................................................................................ 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane. 

HFC–236ea ............................................................................................................... 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane. 

HFC–365mfc ............................................................................................................. 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane. 

HCFC–31 .................................................................................................................. Chlorofluoromethane. 

HCFC–123a .............................................................................................................. 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane. 

HCFC–151a .............................................................................................................. 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane. 

C4F9OCH3 ................................................................................................................. 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxybutane. 

(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3 .................................................................................................... 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane. 

C4F9OC2H5 ................................................................................................................ 1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES