Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 11805 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: February 6, 2013. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03757 Filed 2–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9782–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Region 4 

States; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure 

Requirement for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

submissions from Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee for 

inclusion into each state’s 

implementation plan. This proposal 

pertains to the infrastructure state 

implementation plans (SIPs) for these 

States as they relate to certain Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requirements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. These plans are 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. Specifically, EPA 

is proposing to approve the submissions 

for Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee that relate to 

the infrastructure SIP requirement to 

protect visibility in another state. All 

other applicable infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS associated 

with these States are being addressed in 

separate rulemakings. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0814, 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– 

0814,’’ 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, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0814. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What are States required to address under 

sections 110(a)(2)(D)? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how Region 4 

States addressed element (D)(i)(II) related 

to visibility? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11806 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1On July 17, 2012, Kentucky withdrew its 

September 8, 2009, 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure 

submission addressing the 2008 8-hour ozone, 2006 

PM2.5 and 2008 Lead NAAQS. Kentucky replaced 

its September 8, 2009, section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure submission with a submission 

provided on July 17, 2012. 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) are to be submitted by states 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

no later than October 2009 for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee’s infrastructure 

submissions were received by EPA on 

July 25, 2008, July 23, 2008, August 26, 

2008, December 7, 2007, April 1, 2008, 

March 14, 2008, and December 14, 2007, 

respectively, for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS; and on September 23, 2009, 

October 21, 2009, July 17, 2012,1

October 6, 2009, September 21, 2009, 

September 18, 2009, and October 19, 

2009, respectively, for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee were 

among other states that did not receive 

findings of failure to submit because 

they had provided a complete 

submission to EPA to address the 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008. 

The rulemaking proposed through 

today’s action only addresses section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility 

requirements. 

II. What are States required to address 

under sections 110(a)(2)(D)? 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in SIP submissions. 

The first two prongs, which are codified 

in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are 

provisions that prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity in one 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3), or to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

EPA has previously taken action to 

address Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee’s SIP 

submissions related to prongs 1 through 

3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking relates only to requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), 

which as previously described, requires 

that the SIP contain adequate provisions 

to protect visibility in any other State. 

More information on this requirement 

and EPA’s rationale for today’s proposal 

that each state is meeting this 

requirement for purposes of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

is provided below. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Region 4 States addressed element 

(D)(i)(II) related to visibility? 

Prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requires that SIPs include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

interfering with measures to protect 

visibility in another state. In describing 

how its submission meets this 

requirement, Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee each 

referred to EPA-approved state 

provisions requiring electric generating 

units (EGUs) to comply with the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and to the 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee’s regional 

haze SIPs. Although Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee’s regional 

haze SIPs have not been fully approved, 

EPA believes that the infrastructure SIP 

submission together with previously 

approved SIP provisions, specifically 

those provisions that require EGUs to 

comply with CAIR and the additional 

measures in the regional haze SIP 

addressing best available retrofit 

technology (BART) and reasonable 

progress requirements for other sources 

or pollutants, are adequate to 

demonstrate compliance with prong 4, 

thus, EPA is proposing to fully approve 

this aspect of the submission. 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee’s regional haze 

SIPs relied on previous incorporations 

of the CAIR into the EPA-approved SIPs 

as an alternative to the requirement that 

the regional haze SIPs provide for 

source-specific BART emission limits 

for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) emissions from EGUs. 

CAIR, as originally promulgated, 

requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants, 

and EPA’s determination that states 

could rely on CAIR as an alternative to 

requiring BART for CAIR-subject EGUs 

had specifically been upheld in Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 

1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Moreover, the 

states with Class I areas affected by 

emissions from sources in Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee 

had adopted reasonable progress goals 

for visibility protection that were 

consistent with the EGU emission limits 

resulting from CAIR. 

In 2008, however, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). The court found CAIR to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 

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

ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 

without vacatur because it found that 

‘‘allowing CAIR to remain in effect until 

it is replaced by a rule consistent with 

[the court’s] opinion would at least 

temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR.’’ North 

Carolina, 550 F.3d at 1178. 

After the remand of CAIR by the D.C. 

Circuit and the promulgation by EPA of 

a new rule—the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) or ‘‘Transport 

Rule’’—to replace CAIR, EPA issued a 

limited disapproval of Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and 

Tennessee’s regional haze SIPs (and 

other states’ regional haze SIPs that 

relied similarly on CAIR) because EPA 

believed that full approval of the SIP 

was not appropriate in light of the 

court’s remand of CAIR and the 

uncertain but limited remaining period 

of operation of CAIR. EPA finalized a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 11807 

2Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 

from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

limited approval of Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee regional 

haze SIPs, indicating that except for its 

reliance on CAIR, the SIP met CAA 

requirements for the first planning 

period of the regional haze program. See 

Alabama: July 28, 2012 (77 FR 38515); 

Georgia: July 28, 2012 (77 FR 38501); 

Kentucky: March 30, 2012 (77 FR 

19098); Mississippi: July 27, 2012 (77 

FR 38191); North Carolina: July 27, 2012 

(77 FR 38185); South Carolina: July 28, 

2012 (77 FR 38509) Tennessee: April 24, 

2012 (77 FR 243392), and November 27, 

2012 (77 FR 70689).2 EPA also finalized 

a limited Federal Implementation Plan 

for Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina 

and Tennessee, which merely 

substituted reliance on EPA’s more 

recent CSAPR’s NOX and SO2 trading 

programs for EGUs for the SIP’s reliance 

on CAIR. See 77 FR 33642, June 7, 2012. 

Since the above-described 

developments with regard to Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and 

Tennessee’s regional haze SIPs, the 

situation has changed. In August 2012, 

the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to 

vacate CSAPR. EME Homer City 

Generation, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

In this decision, the court ordered EPA 

to ‘‘continue administering CAIR 

pending the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ Thus, EPA has been 

ordered by the court to develop a new 

rule, and to continue implementing 

CAIR in the meantime, and the opinion 

makes clear that after promulgating that 

new rule EPA must provide states an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to 

implement that rule. Implementation of 

CAIR thus cannot be replaced until EPA 

has promulgated a final rule through a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process; states have had an opportunity 

to draft and submit SIPs; EPA has 

reviewed the SIPs to determine if they 

can be approved; and EPA has taken 

action on the SIPs, including 

promulgating a Federal Implementation 

Plan, if appropriate. 

At this time, the deadline for asking 

the Supreme Court to review this 

decision has not passed, and the United 

States has made no decision regarding 

whether to seek further appeal. 

Nonetheless, the EPA intends to act in 

accordance with the holdings in the 

EME Homer City Generation opinion. 

Based upon the direction provided in 

that opinion for EPA to continue 

administering CAIR, the Agency 

believes that it is appropriate to rely on 

CAIR emission reductions for now for 

purposes of assessing the adequacy of 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee’s infrastructure 

SIPs with respect to prong 4 while a 

valid replacement rule is developed and 

until implementation plans complying 

with any new rule are submitted by the 

states and acted upon by EPA or until 

the court case is resolved in a way that 

provides different direction regarding 

CAIR and CSAPR. In addition, EPA 

believes that based on the court’s 

decision on CSAPR it would be 

appropriate to propose to rescind its 

limited disapproval of Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and 

Tennessee’s regional haze SIPs and 

propose a full approval, however, EPA 

is not at this time proposing to change 

the limited approval and limited 

disapproval of these states’ regional 

haze SIPs. EPA expects to propose an 

appropriate action regarding Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and 

Tennessee’s regional haze SIPs in a 

separate rulemaking. 

As neither Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee nor EPA 

has taken any action to remove CAIR 

from the Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee SIPs, CAIR 

remains part of the EPA-approved SIP 

and can be considered in determining 

whether the SIP as a whole meets the 

requirement of prong 4 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA is proposing to 

approve the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to prong 4 

because Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina and Tennessee’s regional haze 

SIPs which EPA has given a limited 

approval in combination with its SIP 

provisions to implement CAIR 

adequately prevent sources in Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee 

from interfering with measures adopted 

by other states to protect visibility 

during the first planning period. While 

EPA is not at this time proposing to 

change the limited approval and limited 

disapproval of Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina and Tennessee’s regional 

haze SIPs, EPA expects to propose an 

appropriate action regarding Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and 

Tennessee’s regional haze SIPs upon 

final resolution of EME Homer City 

Generation v. EPA. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve submissions from Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee 

to incorporate provisions into the States’ 

implementation plans to address prong 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve the States’ prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they 

are consistent with section 110 of the 

CAA. 

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. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11808 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• 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). 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

determination does not have 

‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on an Indian 

Tribe as a result of this action. With 

respect to today’s proposed action as it 

relates to South Carolina, EPA notes that 

the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation 

is located within the South Carolina and 

pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims 

Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27–16– 

120, ‘‘all state and local environmental 

laws and regulations apply to the 

Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation 

and are fully enforceable by all relevant 

state and local agencies and 

authorities.’’ Thus, the South Carolina 

SIP applies to the Catawba Reservation, 

however, because today’s proposed 

action is not approving any specific rule 

into the South Carolina SIP, but rather 

proposing that the State’s already 

approved SIP meets certain CAA 

requirements, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that there are no substantial 

direct effects on the Catawba Indian 

Nation. EPA has also preliminarily 

determined that these revisions will not 

impose any substantial direct costs on 

tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: February 7, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03841 Filed 2–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0762; FRL–9781–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Approve Knox County Supplemental 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to 

EPA on December 13, 2012, by the State 

of Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation. Tennessee’s December 13, 

2012, 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 December 13, 2012, SIP 

revision proposes to increase the safety 

margin allocated to motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides 

and volatile organic compounds for 

Knox County to account for changes in 

the emissions model and vehicle miles 

traveled projection model. EPA is 

approving this SIP revision because the 

State has demonstrated that it is 

consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 22, 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–2013– 

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: On 

December 18, 2012, EPA proposed to 

approve, through parallel processing, a 

draft revision to the Tennessee SIP. EPA 

explained in that notice that if the 

State’s final submission was changed, 

EPA will evaluate those changes and if 

necessary and appropriate, issue 

another notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Tennessee’s final submittal was 

different from its draft submittal and as 

a result, EPA is now taking direct final 

action and this proposed action to 

approve Tennessee’s final submittal 

dated December 13, 2012. Today’s 

actions replace and supercede EPA’s 

previous December 18, 2012, proposal 

action. 

Additionally, on March 12, 2008, EPA 

issued a revised ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436. The current 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 

For additional information regarding 

today’s action see the direct final rule 

which is published in the Rules Section 

of this Federal Register. Through that 

direct final rule, EPA is approving the 

State’s implementation plan revision 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS