Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 12587 

(C) You may only use one crab pot, 

which may be of any size, to take king 

crab. 

(D) You may take king crab only from 

June 1 through January 31, except that 

the subsistence taking of king crab is 

prohibited in waters 25 fathoms or 

greater in depth during the period 14 

days before and 14 days after State open 

commercial fishing seasons for red king 

crab, blue king crab, or Tanner crab in 

the location. 

(E) The waters of the Pacific Ocean 

enclosed by the boundaries of Womens 

Bay, Gibson Cove, and an area defined 

by a line 1⁄2 mile on either side of the 

mouth of the Karluk River, and 

extending seaward 3,000 feet, and all 

waters within 1,500 feet seaward of the 

shoreline of Afognak Island are closed 

to the harvest of king crab except by 

Federally qualified subsistence users. 

(v) In the subsistence taking of Tanner 

crab: 

(A) You may not use more than five 

crab pots to take Tanner crab. 

(B) You may not take Tanner crab in 

waters 25 fathoms or greater in depth 

during the 14 days immediately before 

the opening of a State commercial king 

or Tanner crab fishing season in the 

location. 

(C) The daily harvest and possession 

limit per person is 12 male crabs with 

a shell width 51⁄2 inches or greater. 

(5) Alaska Peninsula—Aleutian 

Islands Area. 

(i) The operator of a commercially 

licensed and registered shrimp fishing 

vessel must obtain a subsistence fishing 

permit from the ADF&G prior to 

subsistence shrimp fishing during a 

closed State commercial shrimp fishing 

season or within a closed commercial 

shrimp fishing district, section, or 

subsection; the permit must specify the 

area and the date the vessel operator 

intends to fish; no more than 500 

pounds (227 kg) of shrimp may be in 

possession aboard the vessel. 

(ii) The daily harvest and possession 

limit is 12 male Dungeness crabs per 

person; only crabs with a shell width of 

51⁄2 inches or greater may be taken or 

possessed. 

(iii) In the subsistence taking of king 

crab: 

(A) The daily harvest and possession 

limit is six male crabs per person; only 

crabs with a shell width of 61⁄2 inches 

or greater may be taken or possessed; 

(B) All crab pots used for subsistence 

fishing and left in saltwater unattended 

longer than a 2-week period must have 

all bait and bait containers removed and 

all doors secured fully open; 

(C) You may take crabs only from June 

1 through January 31. 

(iv) The daily harvest and possession 

limit is 12 male Tanner crabs per 

person; only crabs with a shell width of 

51⁄2 inches or greater may be taken or 

possessed. 

(6) Bering Sea Area. 

(i) In that portion of the area north of 

the latitude of Cape Newenham, 

shellfish may only be taken by shovel, 

jigging gear, pots, and ring net. 

(ii) The operator of a commercially 

licensed and registered shrimp fishing 

vessel must obtain a subsistence fishing 

permit from the ADF&G prior to 

subsistence shrimp fishing during a 

closed commercial shrimp fishing 

season or within a closed commercial 

shrimp fishing district, section, or 

subsection; the permit must specify the 

area and the date the vessel operator 

intends to fish; no more than 500 

pounds (227 kg) of shrimp may be in 

possession aboard the vessel. 

(iii) In waters south of 60° North 

latitude, the daily harvest and 

possession limit is 12 male Dungeness 

crabs per person. 

(iv) In the subsistence taking of king 

crab: 

(A) In waters south of 60° North 

latitude, the daily harvest and 

possession limit is six male crabs per 

person. 

(B) All crab pots used for subsistence 

fishing and left in saltwater unattended 

longer than a 2-week period must have 

all bait and bait containers removed and 

all doors secured fully open. 

(C) In waters south of 60° North 

latitude, you may take crab only from 

June 1 through January 31. 

(D) In the Norton Sound Section of 

the Northern District, you must have a 

subsistence permit. 

(v) In waters south of 60° North 

latitude, the daily harvest and 

possession limit is 12 male Tanner 

crabs. 

Dated: February 15, 2011. 

Peter J. Probasco, 

Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board. 

Dated: February 11, 2011. 

Steve Kessler, 

Subsistence Program Leader, USDA—Forest 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5174 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P; 4310–55–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0666–201052; FRL– 

9277–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation 

of the Knoxville 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a request submitted on July 14, 

2010, and amended on September 9, 

2010, from the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC), 

Air Pollution Control Division, to 

redesignate the Knoxville, Tennessee 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The Knoxville, Tennessee 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

comprises Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, 

Knox, Loudon, and Sevier Counties in 

their entireties, and the portion of Cocke 

County that falls within the boundary of 

the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Knoxville Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). EPA’s 

approval of the redesignation request is 

based on the determination that the 

State of Tennessee has met the criteria 

for redesignation to attainment set forth 

in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 

including the determination that the 

Knoxville Area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA 

is approving a revision to the Tennessee 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

include the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Knoxville 

Area that contains the new 2024 motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). This action 

also approves the emissions inventory 

submitted with the maintenance plan. 

As part of this final action, EPA 

considered the adverse comments 

received; a response to comments is 

included in this final action. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective March 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0666. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
12588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 http:// 

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: Jane 

Spann or Royce Dansby-Sparks, 

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. Jane 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029 or via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. Royce DansbySparks may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9187 or via electronic mail at 

dansby-sparks.royce@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for the actions? 

II. What are the actions EPA is taking? 

III. Why is EPA taking these actions? 

IV. Response to Comments 

V. What are the effects of these actions? 

VI. Final Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for the 

actions? 

On July 14, 2010, the State of 

Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted a 

request to redesignate the Knoxville 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and for EPA approval of 

the Tennessee SIP revision containing a 

maintenance plan for the Area. In an 

action published on October 7, 2010 (75 

FR 62026), EPA proposed approval of 

Tennessee’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including 

the emissions inventory submitted 

pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(3); and 

the NOx and VOC MVEBs for the 

Knoxville Area contained in the 

maintenance plan. At that time, EPA 

also proposed to approve the 

redesignation of the Knoxville Area to 

attainment. Additional background for 

today’s action is set forth in EPA’s 

October 7, 2010, proposal. 

The MVEBs included in the 

maintenance plan are as follows: 

TABLE 1—KNOXVILLE AREA VOC AND

NOX MVEBS

[Summer season tons per day (tpd)] 

2024 

NOX ................................................ 36.32 

VOC ................................................ 25.19 

In its October 7, 2010 proposed 

action, EPA noted that the adequacy 

public comment period on these MVEBs 

(as contained in Tennessee’s submittal) 

began on June 15, 2010, and closed on 

July 15, 2010. No comments were 

received during the public comment 

period. Thus, EPA deemed the new 

MVEBs for the Knoxville Area adequate 

for the purposes of transportation 

conformity on September 15, 2010 (75 

FR 55977). 

As stated in the October 7, 2010, 

proposal, this redesignation addresses 

the Knoxville Area’s status solely with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, for which designations were 

finalized on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23857). 

In this final rulemaking, EPA is also 

noting minor corrections that the State 

of Tennessee made on September 2, 

2010, and September 9, 2010, to amend 

its July 14, 2010, submittal. The changes 

reflect minor corrections to total values 

in several data tables for data 

consistency throughout the submittal. In 

addition, area source emissions 

inventory information for Knox County 

that was inadvertently omitted in the 

original submittal was added to 

Appendix A. The corrected submittal 

can be found in the docket EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0666 on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. EPA’s 

proposed action, published on October 

7, 2010 (75 FR 62026), and today’s final 

action, are not affected by these minor 

corrections. EPA is also noting a 

typographical error in the October 7, 

2010, proposed rule. The last entry in 

Table 8 on page 62039 of the proposed 

rule should read ‘‘Non-road mobile 

source total (MLA)’’ instead of ‘‘Nonroad mobile source total,’’ to distinguish 

the 2007 commercial marine vessels, 

locomotives and aircraft emissions from 

other non-road emission sources. See 75 

FR 62039. EPA does not believe this 

minor typographical error affected the 

ability of the public to comment on this 

action because the actual inventory 

numbers were accurate and the public 

was provided with sufficient 

information to comment on the 

proposed actions. 

EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data 

from ambient ozone monitoring stations 

in the Knoxville Area for the ozone 

seasons from 2007–2009. These data 

have been quality-assured and are 

recorded in Air Quality System (AQS). 

The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average 

for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and the 3-year 

average of these values (i.e., design 

values), are summarized in Table 2 of 

this final rulemaking. Preliminary 

monitoring data for the 2010 ozone 

season indicate that the Area is not 

violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS based 

on data from 2008–2010. These 

preliminary data are available in the 

Docket for today’s action although it is 

not yet certified. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE KNOXVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE AREA

[Parts per million, ppm] 

County Site name Monitor ID 

Eight-hour design values (ppm) 

2005– 

2007 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 ** 

Anderson ............................................. Freels Bend Study Area ............................ 470010101–1 0.080 0.077 0.072 0.070 

Blount ................................................... Look Rock, GSMNP .................................. 470090101–1 0.086 0.085 0.079 0.077 

Cades Cove, GSMNP ............................... 470090102–1 0.070 0.072 0.069 0.069 

Jefferson .............................................. 1188 Lost Creek Road .............................. 470890002–1 0.084 0.081 0.076 0.074 

Knox ..................................................... 9315 Rutledge Pike ................................... 470930021–1 0.081 0.081 0.077 0.071 

4625 Mildred Drive .................................... 470931020–1 0.088 0.088 0.082 0.076 

Loudon ................................................. 1703 Roberts Road ................................... 47105109–1 0.085 0.082 0.077 0.073 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 12589 

1A full set of the comments is provided in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE KNOXVILLE 8-HOUR OZONE AREA—Continued 

[Parts per million, ppm] 

County Site name Monitor ID 

Eight-hour design values (ppm) 

2005– 

2007 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 ** 

Sevier ................................................... Cove Mountain, GSMNP ........................... 47155101–1 0.082 0.082 0.079 0.076 

** Based on preliminary data as of November 7, 2010 (this data comprises the 2010 ozone season). The actual design value cannot be calculated until the data is quality assured and formally submitted to EPA sometime in mid-2011. 

II. What are the actions EPA is taking? 

In today’s rulemaking, EPA is 

approving: (1) Tennessee’s emissions 

inventory which was submitted 

pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(3); (2) 

Tennessee’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the Knoxville 

Area, including MVEB’s (such approval 

being one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment status); and, 

(3) Tennessee’s redesignation request to 

change the legal designation of the 

Knoxville Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The maintenance plan is 

designed to demonstrate that the 

Knoxville Area will continue to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 

2024. EPA’s approval of the 

redesignation request is based on EPA’s 

determination that the Knoxville Area 

meets the criteria for redesignation set 

forth in CAA, sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 

175A, including EPA’s determination 

that the Knoxville Area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s 

analyses of Tennessee’s redesignation 

request, emissions inventory, and 

maintenance plan are described in 

detail in the October 7, 2010, proposed 

rule (75 FR 62026). 

Consistent with the CAA, the 

maintenance plan that EPA is approving 

also includes 2024 MVEBs for NOX and 

VOC for the Knoxville Area. In this 

action, EPA is approving these NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for the purposes of 

transportation conformity. For regional 

emission analysis years that involve the 

year 2024 and beyond, the applicable 

budgets (for the purpose of conducting 

transportation conformity analyses) are 

the new 2024 MVEBs. 

III. Why is EPA taking these actions? 

EPA has determined that the 

Knoxville Area has attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and has also 

determined that all other criteria for the 

redesignation of the Knoxville Area 

from nonattainment to attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been 

met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). One 

of those requirements is that the 

Knoxville Area have an approved plan 

demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

taking final action to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Knoxville 

Area as meeting the requirements of 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. In addition, EPA is approving the 

emissions inventory as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Finally, EPA is approving the new 

NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2024 as 

contained in Tennessee’s maintenance 

plan for the Knoxville Area because 

these MVEBs are consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard 

in the Knoxville Area. The detailed 

rationale for EPA’s findings and actions 

are set forth in the proposed rulemaking 

and in other discussion in this final 

rulemaking. EPA received multiple 

comments from one commenter 

(hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Commenter’’) which were generally 

adverse. The comments are summarized 

and responded to below. 

IV. Response to Comments 

EPA received one set of comments on 

the October 7, 2010, proposed approval 

to redesignate the Knoxville Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.1 The comments focused on 

provisions in the Tennessee SIP 

regarding start-up, shutdown and 

malfunction emissions (sometimes 

referred to as SSM or excess emissions) 

that were not changed as part of the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan SIP submittal. The comments 

focused on provisions that the 

Commenter believes are ‘‘inextricably 

linked’’ to the redesignation, and as a 

result, the Commenter concludes that 

these provisions ‘‘have the potential to 

undermine the Knoxville Area’s 

maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for 

ozone.’’ 

The provisions of the Official 

Compilation Rules & Regulations of the 

State of Tennessee (Tenn. Comp. R. & 

Regs.) identified by the Commenter, and 

a summary of the comments, are as 

follows. Some of the comments address 

the same State or Local provisions, but 

each comment is summarized 

individually. 

First, the Commenter identified Tenn. 

Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200–3–20–.07(1) 

and (3). The Commenter believes that 

these provisions should be changed ‘‘to 

clarify that all excess emissions are 

violations regardless of cause’’ and 

notwithstanding any discretionary 

decision made by Tennessee regarding 

whether the violation is ‘‘excused.’’ The 

Commenter believes the ‘‘excuse’’ 

language included in the above-cited 

provisions is ‘‘sufficiently ambiguous 

that it should be revised.’’ The 

Commenter also raised concerns with 

the discretion afforded to the Technical 

Secretary to determine whether excess 

emissions are ‘‘violations’’ and that such 

a determination might negatively affect 

EPA or a citizen in pursuing 

enforcement of such excess emissions as 

violations. 

Second, the Commenter again 

identified Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 

1200–3–20–.07, further elaborating on 

the discretionary determination that the 

Technical Secretary could make 

regarding excess emissions and whether 

such emissions are violations. The 

Commenter stated that ‘‘the SIP contains 

no regulatory standard whatsoever that 

defines how the Technical Secretary’s 

discretion should be exercised.’’ The 

Commenter identifies five criteria 

enumerated in a February 15, 1983, 

Memorandum from Kathleen M. 

Bennett, Assistant Administrator for 

Air, Noise and Radiation (EPA) to 

Regional Administrators, Regions I–X, 

regarding Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (1983 

Bennett Memorandum). The Commenter 

explains that Tennessee’s rules do not 

address criteria four and five identified 

by EPA in the 1983 Bennett 

Memorandum. The discussion in the 

comments suggests that all five criteria 

may be met by the Tennessee rules; 

however, this hinges on Tennessee’s 

interpretation and implementation of its 

rules. Thus, the Commenter appears 

concerned that if the rules were 

interpreted or implemented in a certain 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
12590 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

way, the rules may not be consistent 

with the 1993 Bennett Memorandum. 

Third, the Commenter identified 

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rules 1200–3– 

5–.02(1) and 1200–3–20–.07(1) 

regarding visible emissions and raised 

concerns that these rules ‘‘create an 

exception for visible emissions levels.’’ 

The Commenter explained that when 

these provisions are ‘‘incorporated into 

a permit, this rule operates as a blanket 

exemption for opacity violations.’’ The 

comment also raises a concern about 

discretion on the part of the Technical 

Secretary to exempt a facility’s excess 

emissions and states that these 

provisions are ‘‘automatic exemptions’’ 

that the Commenter does not agree are 

consistent with EPA’s interpretation of 

the CAA. The Commenter explained 

that Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200– 

3–5–.07(1) must be amended so that 

excess visible emissions due to startup 

and shutdown are subject to 

enforcement and that Rule 1200–3–5– 

.02(1) should be eliminated entirely 

because the exceptions provided in that 

rule are ‘‘entirely inconsistent’’ with 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA. 

Fourth, the Commenter identified 

Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200–3– 

20–.06 as ambiguous about whether 

scheduled shutdown of air pollution 

control equipment is an excuse for 

excess emissions. The Commenter 

recommended that this provision be 

amended to clarify that scheduled 

maintenance is not an excuse for excess 

emissions unless the owner or operator 

can prove that better scheduling for 

maintenance and better operation and 

maintenance practices could not have 

prevented the violation. The Commenter 

cited to the 1983 Bennett Memorandum 

for support for this comment. 

Fifth, the Commenter identified Tenn. 

Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200–3–20–.03 as 

a concern because it provides 

exceptions to the notification provisions 

regarding excess emissions. The 

Commenter explained that all owners/ 

operators should be required to give 

notice for all excess emissions and Rule 

1200–3–20–.03 should be amended to 

require such notice. 

Sixth, the Commenter identified 

provisions in the Knox County Air 

Pollution Control Regulations (Knox Co 

Regulations) that raise concerns. The 

identified provisions are Knox Co 

Regulations 32.1(C) and 34.1(A) and (C). 

With regard to 32.1(C), the Commenter 

explained that this regulation should 

clarify the effect of an administrative 

determination on the capacity of 

citizens to bring a citizen suit on the 

same issue. With regard to 34.1(A) and 

(C), the Commenter explained that this 

regulation should state that advance 

notice and reports of excess emissions 

do not excuse such emissions. 

Seventh, the Commenter submitted 

two comments on what was described 

as rule changes made by Tennessee that 

had been submitted to EPA as SIP 

revisions. The main focus of the 

comments appears to be that, ‘‘the 

inclusion of overly-broad SSM 

provisions in the SIP undermines the 

integrity of the State’s emissions 

forecast and can threaten NAAQS 

compliance.’’ As a result, the 

Commenter suggests that EPA should 

condition any redesignation of the 

Knoxville Area on Tennessee’s 

modification of its regulations as 

outlined in the comment letter. 

EPA’s Response. As a point of 

clarification, the issue before EPA in the 

current rulemaking action is a 

redesignation for Knoxville to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard—including the maintenance 

plan. The SIP provisions identified 

above and in Commenter’s letter are not 

currently being proposed for revision as 

part of the redesignation submittal. 

Thus, EPA’s review here is limited to 

whether the already approved 

provisions affect any the requirements 

for redesignation in a manner that 

would preclude EPA from approving the 

redesignation request. Because the rules 

cited by the Commenter are not pending 

before EPA and/or are not the subject of 

this rulemaking action, EPA did not 

undertake a full SIP review of the 

individual provisions. It has long been 

established that EPA may rely on prior 

SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request (See page 3 of the 

September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). 

There are two main rules identified by 

the Commenter. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 

Rule 1200–3–20 is a rule entitled, 

‘‘Limits on Emissions Due to 

Malfunctions, Start-Ups and 

Shutdowns.’’ The other rule, Tenn. 

Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200–3–5 is part 

of Tennessee’s visible emissions rules. 

Rule 1200–3–20 was first approved into 

the SIP in 1980 with a revision in 1982. 

Rule 1200–3–5 was first approved into 

the SIP in 1972 and has undergone 

numerous revisions, with the most 

recent occurring in 1997. As noted 

above, the Commenter has also 

identified Knox Co. Regulations 32.1(C) 

and 34.1(A) and (C). These rules were 

initially incorporated into the SIP in 

1972 and subsequently revised in the 

late 1980s. In the context of today’s 

rulemaking, the Commenter appears to 

suggest that the cited State and County 

rules may impact maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS due to flaws 

in the emissions forecasts because of 

possible future actions by Tennessee to 

excuse excess emissions as violations. 

Following EPA’s receipt of the 

comments, EPA contacted Tennessee 

and Knox County, requesting their 

interpretations of their respective rules 

per the issues identified by the 

Commenter. On November 18, 2010, 

Tennessee responded to EPA explaining 

that: 

Tennessee considers all excess emissions 

events, including events for which the 

Technical Secretary elects not to pursue 

enforcement action, to be violations of the 

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations 

and the Tennessee Air Quality Act. No 

provision in Chapter 20 prohibits the 

Technical Secretary from taking enforcement 

action for excess emissions (including excess 

emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction events), and paragraph 

1200–3–20–.09 of the SIP specifically states 

that no provision in Chapter 20 shall limit 

the authority of the Technical Secretary to 

enforce the SIP or the obligation of an air 

contaminant source to attain and maintain 

the NAAQS. Tennessee notes that EPA’s 

enforcement authorities are established 

pursuant to CAA [section] 113, and a 

decision by the Technical Secretary to excuse 

a violation does not limit EPA’s authority to 

take enforcement action for violations of the 

Act. Similarly, the authority of citizens to 

enforce the requirements of the Act pursuant 

to CAA [section] 304 is not limited by the 

Technical Secretary’s decision. 

Letter from Barry Stephens, Director, 

Division of Air Pollution Control to 

Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional 

Administrator, November 18, 2010. This 

letter affirms that Tennessee does not 

provide for any ‘‘blanket exemptions’’ 

for emissions. Further, Tennessee does 

not construe its rules to limit either EPA 

or citizen enforcement regardless of a 

decision by the State pursuant to its 

own enforcement discretion. 

With regard to Knox County, a letter 

was provided from Lynne A. 

Liddington, Director of Air Quality 

Management to Gwen Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, on November 

22, 2010. In that letter, Knox County 

first clarified the rules that are currently 

in effect in Knox County. The rules 

currently in effect in Knox County are 

not the SIP-approved rules, which are 

the rules that are Federally enforceable; 

the Commenter focused on the SIPapproved rules (which are the 

Federally-enforceable rules). Knox 

County’s response is still relevant here 

because Knox County addresses two key 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 12591 

2Although EPA interprets the SIP in the same 

manner as indicated by the State and the County, 

EPA recognizes that the cited language is not as 

clear as would be ideal. EPA would encourage the 

State and County to clarify the language in any 

future revisions to these provisions of the SIP. 

3EPA’s analysis in this action is specific to the 

rulemaking at issue—the redesignation request for 

the Knoxville Area and the approval of the 

maintenance plan and other elements outlined in 

this final action. 

4The Commenter appears focused on the 1983 

Bennett Memorandum in the comments. Notably, 

this Memorandum should not be confused with 

other Memoranda issued by EPA, such as the 

September 20, 1999, Memorandum entitled, ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 

and Shutdown,’’ which focuses on related issues but 

also on a source’s affirmative defense in response 

to an enforcement action. 

concerns of the Commenter—excuse of 

violations by the County and citizen 

rights to pursue such violations. Knox 

County cited to Regulation 34.8, which 

states, ‘‘Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to allow the air contaminant 

source to violate the ambient air quality 

standards nor limit the authority of the 

Director and/or board to institute 

actions under other sections of these 

regulations.’’ The letter further 

underscored that EPA and citizen 

enforcement of the CAA is guaranteed 

by the CAA itself. Specifically, Knox 

County stated, ‘‘EPA is granted oversight 

and enforcement abilities through the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 113 and no 

decision by the [Knox County Air 

Quality Management] Director limits 

EPA’s authority to take enforcement 

action for violations of the CAA. The 

authority of citizens to bring 

enforcement suits is guaranteed by CAA 

Section 304.’’ 

The letters from the State and County 

confirm EPA’s interpretation of the SIP, 

i.e., that a determination of a State or 

County official regarding whether to 

pursue a violation of a SIP requirement, 

does not excuse that violation as a 

‘‘violation,’’ and would not affect EPA’s 

or a citizen’s right to enforce such a 

violation.2 EPA further notes, despite 

the fact that these rules have been 

approved into the SIP for many years, 

that the Commenter cites to no cases in 

which a court has interpreted these 

rules as a bar to EPA or citizen 

enforcement. For these reasons, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter that these 

provisions may impact the 

enforceability of the emission 

reductions relied on in the maintenance 

plan. 

Nonetheless, in response to concerns 

expressed by the Commenter that SSM 

emissions might affect the ability of the 

Area to maintain the NAAQS, EPA 

evaluated the application of these 

provisions to the largest relevant source 

in the Area—Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s Bull Run facility—which is 

the source of approximately 76 percent 

of the NOX emissions in the inventory. 

EPA’s evaluation found that the facility 

includes SSM emissions as part of the 

emission information reported to EPA 

under the CAA title IV requirements 

(the Acid Rain program), and the 

associated obligations for monitoring. 

EPA reviewed some of the reported SSM 

events for that facility for 2007 (through 

the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) 

Web site), and concluded that the 

emission inventory submitted to EPA by 

Tennessee appears consistent with the 

CAMD data (i.e., it appears that the 

emission inventory accounts for start 

SSM events at the Bull Run facility).3 As 

a result, it appears that at least with 

regard to the largest NOX source in the 

Knoxville Area, the emissions inventory 

includes SSM events such that the 

projections for future maintenance 

incorporate consideration of historic 

SSM. With this background, below are 

more specific responses to Commenter’s 

concerns. 

1. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200– 

3–20–.07(1) and (3) 

Contrary to the Commenter’s 

assertion, there is nothing in the plain 

text of the above-cited rules that 

provides any sort of blanket exemption. 

Rule 1200–3–20–.07(1) simply explains 

what reporting is required upon excess 

emissions events, and Rule 1200–3–20– 

.07(3) appears to limit the evidentiary 

effect of the excess emissions report for 

a company in defense of enforcement. 

Together, the plain text of the rules and 

the above-quoted explanation by 

Tennessee make clear that there is no 

blanket exemption for excess emissions 

included in Rule 1200–3–20–.07(1) and 

(3). Thus, EPA does not see a basis for 

Commenter’s claim that these rules 

compromise the emissions levels relied 

on to demonstrate maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

2. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200– 

3–20–.07(1) (Enforcement Discretion 

Issue) 

The Commenter’s focus here is on 

Rule 1200–3–20–.07(1) and specifically, 

the last phrase of the sentence that 

reads, ‘‘[t]he owner or operator of the 

violating source shall submit within 

twenty (20) days after receipt of the 

notice of violation the following data to 

assist the Technical Secretary in 

deciding whether to excuse or proceed 

upon the violation.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

While EPA agrees that this language 

could be more clearly phrased, as 

explained above, the State interprets 

this language not to excuse excess 

emissions as violations, but rather to 

establish its use of enforcement 

discretion in pursuing the violation in 

terms of an enforcement action. 

Specifically, the November 18, 2010, 

letter provided by Tennessee makes 

clear that Tennessee considers all excess 

emissions to be violations, but 

highlights that the State has 

enforcement discretion. In terms of the 

discretion and the consideration of the 

five elements cited by the Commenter 

(from the 1983 Bennett Memorandum), 

the items requested by Tennessee in 

Rule 1200–2–20–.07(2) do touch on the 

elements identified by EPA in the 1983 

Bennett Memorandum.4 While the 

Tennessee rule does not include the 

precise language from EPA’s Guidance 

Memoranda, information consistent 

with the criteria EPA identified in the 

1983 Bennett Memorandum are 

available to the State because such 

information must be submitted by 

sources as part of the excess emissions 

reports required by Tennessee’s rule. In 

the absence of information indicating 

that Tennessee has inappropriately 

excused excess emissions as violations, 

and/or sources utilizing affirmative 

defenses to enforcement actions that are 

inconsistent with EPA’s Guidance, EPA 

does not agree that today’s rulemaking 

and the maintenance emissions analysis 

is undermined by the above-cited 

language in the Tennessee SIP. While 

EPA believes that the Tennessee rules 

could be more clearly drafted, there is 

no information demonstrating that 

Tennessee interprets its rules in a way 

that is inconsistent with the CAA and 

thus EPA does not believe that the rules 

would undermine the maintenance 

demonstration submitted by the State. 

3. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200– 

3–5–.02(1) and 1200–3–20–.07(1) 

The Commenter’s expressed concern 

focuses on the language in Rule 1200– 

3–5–.02(1) that states, ‘‘due allowance 

may be made for visible emissions in 

excess of that permitted in this chapter 

which are necessary or unavoidable due 

to routine startup and shutdown 

conditions.’’ As an initial matter, EPA 

notes that the ‘‘due allowance’’ language 

of Rule 1200–3–5–.02(1) cited above is 

preceded by the phrase, ‘‘Consistent 

with the requirements of Chapter 1200– 

3–20.’’ As discussed above, Tennessee’s 

November 18, 2010, letter to EPA 

affirms that the State considers all 

excess emissions events to be violations 

and that no provision in Chapter 20 

prohibits the Technical Secretary from 

taking enforcement action for excess 

emissions, including excess emissions 

resulting from SSM events. The 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
12592 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

5As was noted earlier in this notice, TVA’s Bull 

Run facility accounts for approximately 76.6 

percent of the NOX (which includes NO2) emissions 

in this nonattainment area (pursuant to 2008 

emissions estimates). Thus, it is the largest NOX

emitter in the Area. The NOX emissions from Bull 

Run include excess emission events, consistent 

with Federal requirements. So in terms of NOX, 

EPA does not see a basis for concern regarding the 

NOX related emissions inventory data. As a result, 

the Commenter’s point on NOX in this context 

appears unsupported. 

Commenter states that ‘‘due allowance’’ 

is not defined, and therefore appears to 

believe that this provision results in an 

automatic exemption from compliance 

with underlying emission limits. While 

EPA agrees that the meaning of the 

language in Rule 1200–3–5–.02(1) is not 

clear based solely on the plain text, the 

Commenter has pointed to no evidence 

that the State has in fact interpreted this 

language to excuse sources from 

complying with emission limits during 

periods of startup and shutdown and 

EPA is not aware that the State has done 

so. 

EPA notes that visible emissions are 

generally associated with particulate 

mass emissions, not ozone. In that 

context, however, the Commenter 

explains that nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

one of the components of visible 

emissions, is also a precursor for 

ground-level ozone. As noted above, the 

Commenter has not provided any 

evidence that the State has interpreted 

this provision in a manner that would 

undermine the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

maintenance plan and EPA does not 

have information indicating that 

Tennessee has acted to ‘‘excuse’’ such 

emissions under this provision. 

Furthermore, even if Tennessee were to 

interpret the provision in such a 

manner, there is no evidence that it 

might have a sufficient impact on 

emissions of NO2 (or any other 

pollutant) that could impact ozone 

maintenance in the Knoxville Area.5

Therefore, EPA has no reason to 

conclude that this provision will have 

an adverse effect on future maintenance. 

4. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200– 

3–20–.06 

Rule 1200–3–20–.06 requires advance 

notice of scheduled maintenance to the 

Technical Secretary. The Commenter 

appears to suggest that the abovereferenced rule is vague because it is not 

clear whether giving advanced notice of 

maintenance is an excuse for excess 

emissions. EPA disagrees. This rule is 

simply a notification requirement and in 

the absence of regulatory language 

providing that such notification would 

exempt a source from compliance, EPA 

sees no support for the Commenter’s 

concern. EPA supports the notification 

requirements—and notes that the more 

notifications that are required by the 

rules, the more transparency there is 

with regard to excess emissions. These 

types of notifications may support 

citizen and other enforcement of the SIP 

under the Act because without the 

notifications, citizens and others may 

not always have knowledge about the 

excess emissions. Therefore, EPA rejects 

the Commenter’s contention, and 

concludes that this provision will have 

no adverse impact on continued 

maintenance after the Area is 

redesignated. 

5. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200– 

3–20–.03 

The Commenter asserts that this rule 

includes exceptions for required 

notifications for excess emissions and 

that it should be revised to eliminate the 

exceptions and require reporting for all 

excess emissions. The rule begins by 

stating that, ‘‘[w]hen any emission 

source, air pollution control equipment, 

or related facility breaks down in such 

a manner as to cause the emission of air 

contaminants in excess of the applicable 

emissions standards contained in these 

regulations, or of sufficient duration to 

cause damage to property or public 

health, the person responsible for such 

equipment shall promptly notify the 

Technical Secretary of such failure or 

breakdown and provide a statement 

giving all pertinent facts, including the 

estimated duration of the breakdown.’’ 

The rule also includes some limited 

exceptions to the notice provision, such 

as, ‘‘[v]iolations of the visible emission 

standard which occur for less than 20 

minutes in one day [* * *] need not be 

reported.’’ Further exceptions are also 

identified for certain emissions in 

attainment or unclassifiable areas. 

While the rule does provide for 

exceptions to certain notifications of 

malfunctions, EPA notes that the excuse 

from notification is not an excuse from 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit. Thus, these notification 

exceptions do not undermine the 

current emissions inventories and 

projections. EPA notes that the rule 

cited above is one of general 

applicability and many times, 

individual permit conditions may 

require additional reporting. This is 

precisely the case with the largest NOX

emitter in the Area—TVA Bull Run 

(which must comply with the CAA title 

IV reporting requirements). While EPA 

believes it is possible that the rule could 

be clarified or improved; EPA does not 

agree that the rule undermines the 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for the Knoxville Area 

or requires revision prior to the Area’s 

final redesignation. 

6. Knox County SIP Regulations 

With respect to Knox County SIP 

regulations, the Commenter concedes 

that no provision ‘‘overtly creates 

excuses for excess emissions,’’ but 

suggests some changes that the 

Commenter believes would improve the 

clarity of the regulations. While EPA 

agrees that there is language in the Knox 

County regulations that could be 

clarified, the Commenter has provided 

no support for the proposition that these 

regulations would undermine the ability 

of the Knoxville Area to maintain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with 

the submitted maintenance plan. In fact, 

the Commenter appears to admit such 

by recognizing that the rules do not 

excuse compliance for periods of excess 

emissions. EPA notes the following with 

regard to the specific Knox County 

regulations identified by the 

Commenter. With regard to the 

notification elements from Knox Co 

Regulation 34.1(A) and (C), EPA 

supports their requirement for 

notification of excess emissions. Knox 

County Rules 34.1(A) and (C) require 

advance notice of scheduled 

maintenance to the Director and 

notifications regarding facility 

breakdowns that cause violations, but 

they provide no exemption from 

standards. As set forth above, EPA 

believes that there is no basis for 

interpreting notice provisions as 

providing relief from compliance with 

emissions limitations in the absence—as 

is the case here—of any specific 

regulatory language providing such 

relief. Furthermore, EPA has no 

information indicating that Knox 

County has interpreted this regulation 

such that the notification was construed 

as an exemption. In fact, as was 

explained earlier, Knox County sent 

EPA a letter dated November 22, 2010, 

affirming that no decision by Knox 

County limits EPA or citizen authority 

to take enforcement action for violations 

of the CAA and that nothing in the 

County’s rules shall be construed to 

allow an air contaminant source to 

violate the ambient air quality standards 

nor limit the authority of the Director 

and/or board to institute actions. The 

other Knox County rules cited by 

Commenter fall into the same category— 

the rules themselves contain no 

language suggesting that there is any 

automatic or blanket exemption for 

excess emission. 

In terms of the Commenter’s overall 

stated concern, the record and EPA’s 

proposal provide further supporting 

information (75 FR 62026) regarding the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 12593 

6Section 175A(a) requires that the initial 

maintenance plan submitted to support a 

redesignation demonstrate maintenance at least 10 

years after EPA’s approval. Section 175A(b) requires 

that this maintenance plan be updated 8 years after 

EPA approval to extend the original maintenance 

plan for an additional 10 year period. 

attainment and projected emission 

inventories. Specifically, in EPA’s 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

and the associated maintenance plan, 

EPA explained its rationale for the 

approval of the maintenance plan and 

redesignation request based on the 

criteria required by the CAA, the 

implementing regulations, and EPA’s 

longstanding guidance for redesignating 

areas from nonattainment to attainment. 

EPA evaluated the emissions reductions 

in association with the maintenance 

plan and fully considered whether it 

was reasonable to believe that these 

reductions are ‘‘permanent and 

enforceable’’ measures to support 

continued maintenance through the 

initial maintenance period.6 The base 

year or ‘‘attainment level’’ emissions for 

the Knoxville Area as identified in the 

State’s submission and EPA’s proposed 

approval are 135.19 tpd for NOX and 

112.28 tpd for VOC. Also, as provided 

in Tables 3 and 4 in the proposed rule, 

through the end of the maintenance 

period (i.e., 2024), emission reductions 

realized through Federal, State and local 

measures are projected to result in 

emission levels of 79.08 tpd for NOX

and 85.11 tpd for VOC. This indicates 

a 41.5 percent reduction in NOX and a 

24.2 percent reduction in VOC for the 

Knoxville Area beyond the levels that 

brought the Area into attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards. Thus, 

EPA believes that its analysis of 

Knoxville’s ability to maintain the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is conservative 

and supported by the evidence 

provided. 

TABLE 3—KNOXVILLE AREA NOX EMISSIONS

[Summer season tpd] 

Summary of NOX emissions (tpd) 

Year Point Area Onroad 

Nonroad 

(excluding MLA) 

Nonroad 

(MLA) Total Safety margin 

Change 

from 

2007 

% 

2007 ................................................................. 42.69 2.07 71.83 13.16 5.44 135.19 ................ ................

2010 ................................................................. 42.65 2.15 63.10 12.17 5.03 125.10 10.09 ¥7.5 

2013 ................................................................. 42.94 2.29 54.36 10.51 4.34 114.44 20.75 ¥15.3 

2016 ................................................................. 43.56 2.50 45.62 8.74 3.61 104.03 31.18 ¥23.0 

2020 ................................................................. 44.30 2.60 33.96 7.21 2.98 91.05 44.14 ¥32.7 

2024 ................................................................. 45.11 2.68 22.29 6.37 2.63 79.08 56.11 ¥41.5 

Note: Emissions are for Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Sevier and onroad emissions for Cocke County. 

MLA = Commercial Marine Vessels, Locomotives and Aircraft. 

TABLE 4—KNOXVILLE AREA VOC EMISSIONS

[Summer season in tpd] 

Summary of VOC emissions (tpd) 

Year Point Area Onroad 

Nonroad 

(excluding MLA) 

Nonroad 

(MLA) Total Safety margin 

Change 

from 

2007 

% 

2007 ................................................................. 7.32 33.5 67734.26 0.68 112.28 

2010 ................................................................. 7.17 34.21 35331.05 0.62 106.58 5.70 ¥5.1 

2013 ................................................................. 7.37 35.23 0926.47 0.52 99.88 1240¥11.0 

2016 ................................................................. 7.88 36.64 27052.7 0.44 94.08 1820¥16.2 

2020 ................................................................. 8.64 38.0 227218.04 0.35 88.15 243¥21.5 

2024 ................................................................. 9.53 40.24 18396.62 0.33 85.11 277¥24.2 

Note: Emissions are for Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Sevier and onroad emissions for Cocke County. MLA = Commercial Marine Vessels, Locomotives and Aircraft. 

On the first page of the comment 

letter, the Commenter states that 

‘‘[w]hile emissions of [NOX] and [VOCs] 

have not caused NAAQS violations 

during the past few years at the 

monitoring locations, the required 

‘permanent and enforceable’ measures 

that constrain emissions in the future 

cannot guarantee maintenance in light 

of the SSM provisions in the SIP.’’ In 

light of the Commenter’s general 

reference to permanent and enforceable 

measures, the following provides 

general information regarding those 

measures in the SIP that support today’s 

action. 

The section of the proposed action 

entitled ‘‘Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the Knoxville Area 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Nonattainment Area Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions,’’ on pages 62034–62035 of 

EPA’s October 7, 2010, proposed 

rulemaking, there is an explanation of 

the permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions that are anticipated in the 

Knoxville Area over the maintenance 

period. 

For the reasons provided above, EPA 

does not agree that there is any 

reasonable basis for concluding that the 

provisions cited by the Commenter will 

affect the Area’s ability to maintain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS over the 

maintenance period, nor that they in 

any way undercut the maintenance plan 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
12594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

that the State has submitted and EPA 

intends to approve. However, EPA notes 

that if for any reason the Area does 

experience a violation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS after redesignation, 

the contingency measures contained in 

the maintenance plan associated with 

this redesignation would require 

Tennessee to implement measures to 

correct the violation. This accords with 

Congress’s judgment, as reflected in the 

CAA, that even an approved 

maintenance plan could not guarantee 

that a violation might not occur after 

redesignation. Congress thus required in 

section 175A for contingency measures 

to, at a minimum, help correct such 

violations. See the discussion of 

contingency measures in Greenbaum v. 

EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, as is discussed in the 

proposal, while a violation of the 

NAAQS is the ultimate trigger for 

implementation of contingency 

measures to correct the violation, other 

contingency measures contained in the 

maintenance plan for Knoxville provide 

for early action to prevent violation. For 

example, the maintenance plan includes 

a contingency measure to launch an 

investigation if emissions projections 

indicate that a violation of the 3-year 

design value may be imminent. Another 

set of contingency measures are 

triggered where emissions projections 

exceed expectations by greater than 10 

percent under the specified metrics. 

Thus, in addition to providing for 

prompt correction of any violations that 

may occur, the maintenance plan/ 

contingency measures include 

provisions to account for potential 

future changes to emissions other than 

what was forecast. See the Contingency 

Measures Section of EPA’s October 7, 

2010, proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 

62037, for further information. 

V. What are the effects of these actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

changes the legal designation of 

Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, 

Loudon, and Sevier Counties in their 

entireties, and the portion of Cocke 

County that falls within the boundary of 

the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is modifying the regulatory table in 40 

CFR 81.343 to reflect a designation of 

attainment for these full and partial 

counties. EPA is also approving, as a 

revision to the Tennessee SIP, 

Tennessee’s plan for maintaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

Knoxville Area through 2024. The 

maintenance plan includes contingency 

measures to remedy possible future 

violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and establishes NOX and VOC 

MVEBs for 2024 for the Knoxville Area. 

Additionally, this action approves the 

emissions inventory for the Knoxville 

Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. 

VI. Final Action 

After evaluating Tennessee’s 

redesignation request and considering 

the comments on the proposed rule, 

EPA is taking final action to approve the 

redesignation and change the legal 

designation of Anderson, Blount, 

Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier 

Counties in their entireties, and the 

portion of Cocke County that falls 

within the boundary of the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through 

this action, EPA is also approving into 

the Tennessee SIP, the 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan for the 

Knoxville Area, which includes the new 

NOX MVEBs of 36.32 tpd and VOC 

MVEBs of 25.19 tpd for 2024. 

Additionally, EPA is approving the 2007 

emissions inventory for the Knoxville 

Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. In a previous action, EPA found 

the new Knoxville Area MVEBs 

adequate for the purposes of 

transportation conformity (75 FR 55977, 

September 15, 2010). Within 24 months 

from the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy finding for the MVEBs, the 

transportation partners are required to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

EPA finds there is good cause for this 

action to become effective immediately 

upon publication. This is because a 

delayed effective date is unnecessary 

due to the nature of a redesignation to 

attainment, which relieves the Area 

from certain CAA requirements that 

would otherwise apply to it. The 

immediate effective date for this action 

is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ The 

purpose of the 30-day waiting period 

prescribed in section 553(d) is to give 

affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s rule relieves the State of 

various requirements for the Knoxville 

Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good 

cause under 5 U.S. C. 553(d)(3) for this 

action to become effective on the date of 

publication of this action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of the 

maintenance plan under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

required by State law. A redesignation 

to attainment does not in and of itself 

impose any new requirements, but 

rather results in the application of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For these 

reasons, these actions: 

• Are 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); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 12595 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this final 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 May 9, 2011. 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. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Oxides of nitrogen, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks. 

Dated: March 1, 2011. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry ‘‘8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan for the Knoxville, 

Tennessee Area’’ at the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State effective date EPA approval 

date Explanation 

*******

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for 

the Knoxville, Tennessee Area.

Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, 

Loudon, and Sevier Counties, and 

the portion of Cocke County that 

falls within the boundary of the 

Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park.

7/14/2010 3/8/2011 [Insert citation of publication].For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. In § 81.343, the table entitled 

‘‘Tennessee—Ozone (8-Hour Standard)’’ 

is amended under by revising the entry 

for ‘‘Knoxville, TN’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.343 Tennessee. 

* * * * * 

TENNESSEE—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD) 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

Knoxville, TN: 

Anderson County .......................... This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................

Blount County ............................... This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................

Cocke County (part) ...................... This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................

(Great Smoky Mtn Park) ............... .............................................................. .............................................................. ................ ................

Jefferson County .................................. This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................

Knox County ......................................... This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................

Loudon County ..................................... This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................

Sevier County ....................................... This action is effective 3/8/2011 ......... Attainment ........................................... ................ ................


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
12596 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TENNESSEE—OZONE (8-HOUR STANDARD)—Continued 

Designated area 

Designation a Category/classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

*******

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–5193 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8171] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59. Accordingly, the communities will 

be suspended on the effective date in 

the third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. However, some of these 

communities may adopt and submit the 

required documentation of legally 

enforceable floodplain management 

measures after this rule is published but 

prior to the actual suspension date. 

These communities will not be 

suspended and will continue their 

eligibility for the sale of insurance. A 

notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 

date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may legally be provided for 

construction or acquisition of buildings 

in identified SFHAs for communities 

not participating in the NFIP and 

identified for more than a year, on 

FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of 

the community as having flood-prone 

areas (section 202(a) of the Flood 

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 

U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

are impracticable and unnecessary 

because communities listed in this final 

rule have been adequately notified. 

Each community receives 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letters 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

stating that the community will be 

suspended unless the required 

floodplain management measures are 

met prior to the effective suspension 

date. Since these notifications were 

made, this final rule may take effect 

within less than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 

Environmental Considerations. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Administrator has determined that this 

rule is exempt from the requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act because 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits flood insurance coverage 

unless an appropriate public body 

adopts adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed no 

longer comply with the statutory 

requirements, and after the effective 

date, flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the communities unless 

remedial action takes place. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This rule involves no policies that have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule meets the applicable 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 

does not involve any collection of 

information for purposes of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES