Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74817 

Dated: November 27, 2012. 

K.A. Taylor, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Thirteenth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30409 Filed 12–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0502; FRL–9763–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5

Permitting Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a revision to Wisconsin’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources (WDNR) in a letter 

dated May 12, 2011. The revision 

concerns permitting requirements 

relating to particulate matter of less than 

2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the revisions 

because they do not meet the 2008 PM2.5

SIP requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0502, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 385–5501. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office 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–R05–OAR–2011– 

0502. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. 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 instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Andrea 

Morgan, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–6058 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Morgan, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6058, 

morgan.andrea@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. The State’s Submittal 

III. Does this submittal comply with Federal 

regulations? 

IV. What action is EPA taking on this 

submittal? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. The State’s Submittal 

In May 2008, EPA finalized 

regulations to implement the New 

Source Review (NSR) Implementation 

Rule for PM2.5 to include the major 

source threshold, significant emissions 

rate and offset ratios for PM2.5, 

interpollutant trading for offsets and 

applicability of NSR to PM2.5 precursors. 

On October 20, 2010, EPA amended the 

requirements for PM2.5 under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program by adding maximum 

allowable increase in ambient pollutant 

concentrations and screening tools 

known as the Significant Impact Levels 

and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5. 

On May 12, 2011, Wisconsin 

requested a revision to its SIP to include 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
74818 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

new permit requirements relating to 

PM2.5. The provisions were designed to 

match the requirements set forth in the 

May 2008 and October 2010 rules. 

Wisconsin submitted revisions to its 

rules NR 400, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 

and 484 of the Wisconsin 

Administrative Code. The submittal 

requests that EPA approve the following 

revisions to Wisconsin’s SIP: (1) Amend 

NR 400.02(40), (70), and (79); (2) create 

NR 400.02(123m); (3) amend NR 

400.02(135); (4) create NR 400.03(4)(ki); 

(5) renumber and amend NR 404.02(4e) 

and (4m); (6) amend NR 

405.02(25k)(intro.); (7) create NR 

405.02(27)(a)5m in Table A; (8) amend 

NR 405.07(8)(a)3m; (9) amend NR 

406.04(1)(n)(intro) and 1. and 2. (intro); 

(10) create NR 406.04(2)(cs); (11) create 

NR 407.03(2)(be); (12) create NR 

408.02(32)(a)5m; (13) create NR 

408.06(1)(cm); (14) amend NR 484.03(5) 

in Table 1; (15) and amend NR 484.04(5) 

and (6g) in Table 2. 

The submittal included permanent 

rules to define major source thresholds 

and significant emission increase levels; 

establish the SMC for PM2.5; establish 

interpollutant trading ratios for PM2.5, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX); and clarify existing 

nonattainment area permitting rules. 

EPA announced through a 

memorandum, on July 21, 2011, a 

change in its policy concerning the 

development and adoption of 

interpollutant trading provisions for 

PM2.5. The new policy requires that any 

ratio involving PM2.5 precursors 

submitted to EPA for approval for use in 

a state’s interpollutant offset program 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that shows the net air 

quality benefits of such a ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 

will be applied. In a letter dated March 

5, 2012, WDNR requested to withdraw 

its request to have NR 408.06(1)(cm), the 

provision pertaining to interpollutant 

trading ratios, included in its 2011 

submittal. 

NR 400 contains Wisconsin’s air 

pollution control definitions and the 

following revisions to NR 400 were 

submitted. NR 400.01(40), (70), and (79) 

and NR 400.02(135) were revised to 

clarify existing rules by updating 

references within the rule. These 

amendments do not change the effect or 

intent of these rules. NR 400.02(123m) 

created a definition of ‘‘PM2.5

emissions’’. NR 400.03(4)(ki) created a 

definition for ‘‘PM2.5’’. 

NR 404 contains Wisconsin’s Ambient 

Air Quality requirements, and the 

following revision to NR 404 was 

submitted. NR 404.02 (4e) and (4m) 

were renumbered to NR 400.02(123e) 

and (123s) and were revised to clarify 

the definitions of ‘‘PM2.5’’ and 

‘‘particulate matter of less than 10 

micrometers’’ (PM10). 

NR 405 contains Wisconsin’s PSD 

program requirements, and the 

following revisions to NR 405 were 

submitted. NR 405.02(25k) (intro) was 

amended to clarify language. NR 

405.02(27)(a)5m in Table A was created 

to include the 10 tons per year (tpy) 

significance thresholds for PM2.5, and 40 

tpy threshold for NOX and SO2, the 

precursors to PM2.5. The inclusion of 

these significance values would cause 

sources for which annual emissions 

exceed the significance value to trigger 

the PSD program requirements. NR 

405.07(8)(a)3m was created to exempt 

major sources from the monitoring 

requirements for PM2.5 of NR 405.11 if 

one of the following criteria are met: (a) 

The emissions increase of PM2.5 from a 

new stationary source or the net 

emissions increase of the PM2.5 from a 

major modification would cause, in any 

area, air quality impacts less than 2.3 

mg/m3, 24 hour average; (b) The 

concentration of PM2.5 in the area that 

the source or modification would affect 

is less than 2.3 mg/m3. 

NR 406 contains Wisconsin’s 

construction permitting requirements, 

and the following revisions to NR 406 

were submitted. NR 406(1)(n), NR 

406(1)(n)1 and NR 406(1)(n)2 were 

amended to clarify otherwise unaffected 

existing rules. These changes do not 

change the effect or intent of the rule. 

NR 406.04(2)(cs) was created to exempt 

sources with a maximum theoretical 

emission for PM2.5 of less than 2.2 

pounds per hour from obtaining a 

construction permit. 

NR 407 contains Wisconsin’s 

operation permit requirements, and 

WDNR submitted NR 407.03(2)(be) to 

require any source with a maximum 

theoretical emissions of PM2.5 greater 

than 2.2 pounds per hour to obtain an 

operation permit. 

NR section 408 contains Wisconsin’s 

requirements for construction permits in 

nonattainment areas and WDNR 

included NR 408.02(32)(a)5m in its 

submission. NR 408.02(32)(a)5m 

defined ‘‘Significant’’, in reference to a 

net emissions increase or the potential 

of a source to emit any of PM2.5, as a rate 

of emissions that would equal or exceed 

10 tpy of PM2.5 emissions or 40 tpy of 

NOX or SO2. While the original 

submittal requested to create NR 

408.06(1)(cm), Wisconsin withdrew the 

request to include this provision from 

the SIP approval in a letter dated March 

5, 2012. 

NR 484 contains those parts of 

Wisconsin’s regulations that are 

incorporated by reference from the 

regulations. Wisconsin submitted a 

request to amend NR 484.03(5) in Table 

1 and NR 484.04(5) and (6g) in Table 2. 

The updates would correct citations in 

the Wisconsin SIP so that they are up to 

date with Wisconsin’s current 

regulations. 

III. Does This Submittal Comply With 

Federal Regulations? 

EPA has evaluated WDNR’s proposed 

revisions to the Wisconsin SIP in 

accordance with the Federal 

requirements governing state permitting 

programs. The revisions described in 

Section II above are intended to update 

the Wisconsin SIP to comply with 

current rules. As discussed below, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove these 

revisions because they do not meet all 

the requirements of the 2008 rules. 

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables beginning on or after 

January 1, 2011. This requirement is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(vi). Revisions to 

states’ PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(see 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

WDNR’s revision to NR 400.03(4)(ki) 

provides the definition of ‘‘PM2.5’’ as 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter ≤ 2.5mm’’ and NR 400.02(123e) 

defines ‘‘PM2.5’’ as ‘‘particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers 

as measured in the ambient air by a 

reference method based on appendix L 

of 40 CFR part 50, incorporated by 

reference in NR 484.04(6g), and 

designated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 53, incorporated by reference in NR 

484.03(5), or by an equivalent method.’’ 

Similarly, the requested revisions do not 

include the explicit language identifying 

PM10 and PM2.5 condensables. EPA 

recognizes that Wisconsin 

Administrative Code NR 439 contains 

the requirements for reporting, 

recordkeeping, testing, inspection, and 

determination of compliance for air 

contaminant sources and their owners 

and operators. Of note, NR 439.02(4) 

defines ‘‘condensable particulate 

matter’’ as ‘‘any material, except 

uncombined water, that may not be 

collected in the front half of the 

particulate emission sampling train but 

which exists as a solid or liquid at 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74819 

standard conditions.’’ While this 

definition is SIP approved, it was only 

approved as it applies to Wisconsin 

Administrative Code NR 419 to NR 425. 

Wisconsin’s permitting requirements are 

codified in NR 405 to 408. Further, EPA 

regulations require that permitting 

requirements contain the explicit 

language that, ‘‘Particulate matter (PM) 

emissions, PM2.5 emissions, and PM10

emissions shall include gaseous 

emissions from a source or activity 

which condense to form particulate 

matter at ambient temperatures.’’ 

Wisconsin’s current SIP does not 

contain the explicit language to account 

for PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in 

permitting decisions, as codified in 

51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(vi), and to date, the State 

has not made a submission with such 

revisions. 

WDNR’s revisions to NR 

405.02(27)(a)(5) include the significant 

emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2

and NOX as PM2.5 precursors, consistent 

with the 2008 NSR Rule. However, 

Wisconsin’s PSD regulations include 

only generic language to define what 

constitutes a regulated NSR pollutant 

that does not directly account for PM2.5

and its precursors. NR 405(02)(25i) 

defines ‘‘Regulated NSR air 

contaminant’’ as ‘‘Any air contaminant 

for which a national ambient air quality 

standard has been promulgated and any 

constituents or precursors for the air 

contaminants identified by the 

administrator * * * ’’. The 2008 NSR 

Rule obligates the State to explicitly 

identify the precursors to PM2.5 as part 

of the definition for ‘‘Regulated NSR air 

contaminant.’’ EPA concludes that 

although Wisconsin has incorporated 

the significant emissions rates in 

accordance with the 2008 NSR Rule, 

WDNR has not explicitly identified SO2

and NOX as precursors to PM2.5 in 

defining pollutants regulated by the PSD 

program. 

Since the proposed revision to 

Wisconsin’s SIP does not include the 

prescribed language required for the 

identification of precursors and does not 

account for PM2.5 or PM10 condensables, 

EPA proposes to disapprove the 

submitted revisions. EPA’s proposed 

action is consistent with the narrow 

disapproval of the infrastructure 

requirements published on October 29, 

2012 (77 FR 65478). The infrastructure 

SIP was disapproved in part because of 

the deficiencies with regards to the 

identification of precursors to PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables. 

IV. What action Is EPA taking on this 

Submittal? 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

revisions to Wisconsin rules NR 400, 

404, 405, 406, 407, 408 and 484, 

submitted by the State on May 12, 2011, 

for approval into the SIP. The rule 

revisions submitted, described in 

Section II, above, are not consistent with 

Federal regulations governing state 

permitting programs. See Section III, 

above. EPA is also soliciting comment 

on this proposed disapproval. 

Under section 179(a) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), final disapproval of a 

submission that addresses a requirement 

of a part D plan (section 171–193 of the 

CAA), or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in section 110(k)(5), starts a 

sanction clock. The submission EPA is 

proposing to disapprove was not 

submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore if EPA takes 

final action to disapprove these 

submissions, no sanctions under 179 

will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no 

later than two years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the state corrects the 

deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such FIP. However, since elements of 

this SIP revision were narrowly 

disapproved under the infrastructure 

SIP, the two year timeframe began with 

the final narrow disapproval of 

Wisconsin’s Infrastructure SIP (October 

29, 2012; 77 FR 65478). EPA will 

actively work with Wisconsin to 

incorporate changes to its PSD program 

that explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors 

and account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in permitting emissions 

limits, consistent with the 2008 NSR 

Rule. In the interim, EPA expects 

WDNR to adhere to the associated 

requirements of the 2008 NSR Rule in 

its PSD program, specifically with 

respect to the explicit identification of 

PM2.5 precursors, and accounting for 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in 

permitting emissions limits. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely disapproves state 

law as not meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it 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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

a state rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
74820 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: December 10, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0762; FRL-9762–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Knox County Supplemental Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budget Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, a draft 

revision to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to 

EPA on October 12, 2012, by the State 

of Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC). Tennessee’s 

October 12, 2012, draft SIP revision 

includes changes to the maintenance 

plan for the Knox County 1-hour ozone 

area submitted on August 26, 1992, and 

approved by EPA on September 27, 

1993, and a subsequent SIP revision 

approved by EPA on August 5, 1997. 

The Knox County 1-hour ozone area was 

comprised of Knox County in its 

entirety. The October 12, 2012, draft 

revision proposes to increase the safety 

margin allocated to motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) for Knox County to 

account for changes in the emissions 

model and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

projection model. EPA is proposing 

approval of this draft SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0762 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0762,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling 

and Transportation Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Kelly 

Sheckler may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9222 or by electronic mail 

address sheckler.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Parallel Processing 

II. Background 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s SIP 

Revision 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Parallel Processing 

Consistent with EPA regulations 

found at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, 

section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting 

review of a SIP submittal, parallel 

processing allows a state to submit a 

plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by 

the state. Generally, the state submits a 

copy of the proposed regulation or other 

revisions to EPA before going out for 

public comment. EPA reviews this 

proposed state action, and prepares a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking is 

published in the Federal Register 

during the same time frame that the 

state is holding its public process. The 

state and EPA then provide for 

concurrent public comment periods on 

both the state action and federal action. 

If the revision that is finally adopted 

and submitted by the state is changed in 

aspects other than those identified in 

the proposed rulemaking on the parallel 

process submission, EPA will evaluate 

those changes and if necessary and 

appropriate, issue another notice of 

proposed rulemaking. The final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been 

adopted by the state and submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. 

On October 12, 2012, the State of 

Tennessee, through TDEC submitted a 

request for parallel processing of a draft 

SIP revision that the State had already 

taken through public comment. TDEC 

requested parallel processing so that 

EPA could begin to take action on its 

draft SIP revision in advance of the 

State’s submission of the final SIP 

revision. As stated above, the final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been: (1) 

Adopted by Tennessee, (2) submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, 

including any changes made by the 

State after the October 12, 2012, draft 

was submitted to EPA. 

II. Background 

The Knox County, Tennessee, 1-hour 

ozone attainment and maintenance area 

is comprised of only Knox County in its 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with