Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68253 

Executive Order 12630 

Title VIII of ANILCA requires the 

Secretaries to administer a subsistence 

priority on public lands. The scope of 

this Program is limited by definition to 

certain public lands. Likewise, these 

regulations have no potential takings of 

private property implications as defined 

by Executive Order 12630. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Secretaries have determined and 

certify pursuant to the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et 

seq., that this rulemaking will not 

impose a cost of $100 million or more 

in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. The 

implementation of this rule is by 

Federal agencies, and there is no cost 

imposed on any State or local entities or 

tribal governments. 

Executive Order 12988 

The Secretaries have determined that 

these regulations meet the applicable 

standards provided in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 

regarding civil justice reform. 

Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, the rule does not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism summary 

impact statement. Title VIII of ANILCA 

precludes the State from exercising 

subsistence management authority over 

fish and wildlife resources on Federal 

lands unless it meets certain 

requirements. 

Executive Order 13175 

Title VIII of ANILCA does not provide 

specific rights to tribes for the 

subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and 

shellfish. However, the Secretaries, 

through the Board, provided Federally 

recognized Tribes and Alaska Native 

corporations opportunities to consult on 

this rule. Consultation with Alaska 

Native corporations are based on Public 

Law 108–199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 

2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by 

Public Law 108–447, div. H, title V, Sec. 

518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which 

provides that: ‘‘The Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget and 

all Federal agencies shall hereafter 

consult with Alaska Native corporations 

on the same basis as Indian tribes under 

Executive Order No. 13175.’’ 

The Secretaries, through the Board, 

provided a variety of opportunities for 

consultation: Commenting on proposed 

changes to the existing rule; engaging in 

dialogue at the Council meetings; 

engaging in dialogue at the Board’s 

meetings; and providing input in 

person, by mail, email, or phone at any 

time during the rulemaking process. 

On March 23 and 24, 2015, the Board 

provided Federally recognized Tribes 

and Alaska Native Corporations a 

specific opportunity to consult on this 

rule. Federally recognized Tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations were 

notified by mail and telephone and were 

given the opportunity to attend in 

person or via teleconference. 

Executive Order 13211 

This Executive Order requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. However, this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

13211, affecting energy supply, 

distribution, or use, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Drafting Information 

Theo Matuskowitz drafted these 

regulations under the guidance of 

Eugene R. Peltola, Jr. of the Office of 

Subsistence Management, Alaska 

Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional 

assistance was provided by 

• Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management; 

• Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional 

Office, National Park Service; 

• Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional 

Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; 

• Trevor T. Fox, Alaska Regional 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

and 

• Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional 

Office, U.S. Forest Service. 

Authority 

This rule is issued under the authority 

of Title VIII of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111–3126). 

List of Subjects 

36 CFR Part 242 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Fish, National 

forests, Public lands, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 

50 CFR Part 100 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alaska, Fish, National 

forests, Public lands, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Secretaries amend 36 CFR 

part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 as set 

forth below. 

PART ll—SUBSISTENCE 

MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR 

PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for both 36 

CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 

3101–3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551–3586; 43 U.S.C. 

1733. 

Subpart B—Program Structure 

■ 2. In subpart B of 36 CFR part 242 and 

50 CFR part 100, §ll.15 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ll.15 Rural determination process. 

(a) The Board determines which areas 

or communities in Alaska are nonrural. 

Current determinations are listed at 

§ ll.23. 

(b) All other communities and areas 

are, therefore, rural. 

Dated: Oct. 28, 2015. 

Sally Jewell, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

Dated: Sept. 30, 2015. 

Beth G. Pendleton, 

Regional Forester, USDA—Forest Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27994 Filed 10–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–4333–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0904; FRL–9936–55– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality 

Designation; TN; Reasonably Available 

Control Measures and Redesignation 

for the TN Portion of the Chattanooga 

1997 Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the portion 

of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), on October 15, 

2009, that addresses reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), for the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL 

nonattainment area for the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

(hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area’’ or 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1On April 23, 2013, and September 14, 2012, 

Alabama and Georgia (respectively) submitted 

requests and related SIP revisions for EPA to 

redesignate the Alabama and Georgia portions of 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has since redesignated 

the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Area. See 

79 FR 76235 (December 22, 2014) and 79 FR 75748 

(December 19, 2014), respectively. 

2On May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31239), EPA published 

a final determination that the Chattanooga TN-GAAL Area had attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS based upon quality-assured and certified 

ambient air monitoring data for the 2007–2009 time 

period. EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient 

monitoring data for the Area, which indicate that 

the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the 

submitted 3-year attainment period of 2007–2009. 

As stated in EPA’s March 27, 2015, proposal notice, 

the 3-year design value of 12.9 mg/m3 for the Area 

for 2007–2009 meets the NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3. 

Quality assured and certified data in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database provide a 3-year 

design value of 10.3 mg/m3 for the Area for 2012– 

2014. Furthermore, preliminary monitoring data in 

the AQS database for 2015 indicate that the Area 

is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The AQS database is available at: http:// 

www3.epa.gov/airdata/index.html. 

3The Court issued an amended decision on July 

14, 2015, revising some of the legal aspects of the 

Court’s analysis of the relevant statutory provisions 

(section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and section 172(c)(1)) but 

maintaining its prior holding that section 172(c)(1) 

‘‘unambiguously requires implementation of 

RACM/RACT prior to redesignation . . . even if 

those measures are not strictly necessary to 

demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, Nos. 12–3169, 12–3182, 12– 

3420 (6th Cir. July 14, 2015). 

4The states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Tennessee are located within the Sixth Circuit’s 

jurisdiction. 

‘‘Area’’). Additionally, EPA is taking 

three separate final actions related to 

Tennessee’s November 13, 2014 request 

to redesignate the Tennessee portion of 

the Area to attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and associated SIP 

revision containing a plan for 

maintaining attainment of the standard 

in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. In 

these three actions, EPA is determining 

that the Area is continuing to attain the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; approving and 

incorporating the State’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the standard 

in the Area, including the 2025 motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 for the 

Tennessee portion of this Area, into the 

SIP; and redesignating the Tennessee 

portion of the Area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition to the 

four final actions described above, EPA 

is also finding the 2025 MVEBs for the 

Tennessee portion of the Area adequate 

for the purposes of transportation 

conformity. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

November 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0904. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey, Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Huey 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

9104 or via electronic mail at huey.joel@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background for Final Actions 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

the first air quality standards for PM2.5. 

EPA promulgated an annual standard at 

a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) (based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations) and 

a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/m3 (based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations). 

See 62 FR 36852. On January 5, 2005, 

and supplemented on April 14, 2005, 

EPA designated Hamilton County in 

Tennessee, in association with counties 

in Alabama and Georgia in the 

Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS.1 See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 

19844, respectively. The Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area consists of Hamilton 

County, Tennessee; a portion of Jackson 

County, Alabama; and Catoosa and 

Walker Counties in Georgia. 

On November 13, 2014, TDEC 

requested that EPA redesignate the 

Tennessee portion of the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and submitted a SIP revision containing 

the State’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in 

the Area, including the 2025 MVEBs for 

NOX and PM2.5 for the Tennessee 

portion of the Area. In a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) published 

on March 27, 2015, EPA proposed to 

determine that the Chattanooga TN-GAAL Area is continuing to attain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS; 2 to approve and 

incorporate into the Tennessee SIP the 

State’s plan for maintaining attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Area, 

including the 2025 MVEBs for NOX and 

PM2.5 for the Tennessee portion of the 

Area; and to redesignate the Tennessee 

portion of the Area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 80 FR 16331. 

EPA proposed to approve the 

redesignation request and the related 

SIP revision based, in part, on the 

Agency’s longstanding interpretation 

that the nonattainment planning 

requirements in subpart 1 of title I, part 

D, of the Act (hereinafter ‘‘Subpart 1’’), 

including RACM, are not ‘‘applicable’’ 

for purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) once an area is attaining 

the NAAQS and, therefore, need not be 

approved into the SIP before EPA can 

redesignate the area. See 80 FR 16331 

(March 27, 2015). In the NPR, EPA also 

notified the public of the status of the 

Agency’s adequacy determination for 

the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the 

Tennessee portion of the Area. 

On March 18, 2015, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

(Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 781 F.3d 299 (6th 

Cir. 2015), that is inconsistent with 

EPA’s longstanding interpretation 

regarding section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In its 

decision, the Court vacated EPA’s 

redesignation of the Indiana and Ohio 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA had 

not yet approved RACM under Subpart 

1 for the Cincinnati Area into the 

Indiana and Ohio SIPs.3 The Court 

concluded that ‘‘a State seeking 

redesignation ‘shall provide for the 

implementation’ of RACM/RACT, even 

if those measures are not strictly 

necessary to demonstrate attainment 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS . . . . If a State 

has not done so, EPA cannot ‘fully 

approve[]’ the area’s SIP, and 

redesignation to attainment status is 

improper.’’ Sierra Club, 781 F.3d at 313. 

EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA within 

the Court’s jurisdiction unless it is 

overturned.4 Although EPA continues to 

believe that Subpart 1 RACM is not an 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68255 

5Pursuant to 40 CFR 56.5(b), the EPA Region 4 

Regional Administrator signed a memorandum on 

July 20, 2015, seeking concurrence from the 

Director of EPA’s Air Quality Policy Division 

(AQPD) in the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards to act inconsistent with EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 

172(c)(1) when taking action on pending and future 

redesignation requests in Kentucky and Tennessee 

because the Region is bound by the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. The AQPD Director 

issued her concurrence on July 22, 2015. The July 

20, 2015, memorandum with AQPD concurrence is 

located in the docket for today’s actions. 

6On September 3, 2015, the Sixth Circuit denied 

the petitions for rehearing en banc of this portion 

of its opinion that were filed by EPA, the state of 

Ohio, and industry groups from Ohio. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, Nos. 12–3169, 12–3182, 12–3420, Doc. 136– 

1 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2015). 

applicable requirement under section 

107(d)(3)(E) for an area that has already 

attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS, on September 18, 2015, EPA 

proposed two separate but related 

actions regarding the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in 

response to the Court’s decision.5 6 First, 

EPA proposed to approve the portion of 

the State’s October 15, 2009, attainment 

plan SIP revision that addresses RACM 

under Subpart 1 for the Tennessee 

portion of the Area. Second, EPA 

proposed to supplement the Agency’s 

proposed approval of Tennessee’s 

November 13, 2014, redesignation 

request for the Area by proposing that 

approval of the RACM portion of the 

aforementioned SIP revision satisfies 

the Subpart 1 RACM requirement in 

accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA. See 80 FR 56418. 

The detailed rationale for EPA’s 

findings and actions is set forth in the 

March 27, 2015, proposed rulemaking 

and in the September 18, 2015, 

supplemental proposed rulemaking. See 

80 FR 16331 and 80 FR 56418, 

respectively. The comment periods 

associated with these two proposed 

rulemakings have closed and no adverse 

comments were received. 

II. What are the effects of these actions? 

Approval of the RACM portion of 

Tennessee’s October 15, 2009, 

attainment plan SIP revision satisfies 

the Subpart 1 RACM requirement in 

accordance with the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA. 

Approval of Tennessee’s redesignation 

request changes the legal designation of 

Hamilton County in the Tennessee 

portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL 

Area, found at 40 CFR 81.343, from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Approval of 

Tennessee’s associated SIP revision also 

incorporates a plan for maintaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area through 

2025, including contingency measures 

to remedy any future violations of the 

NAAQS and procedures for evaluation 

of potential violations, into the SIP. The 

maintenance plan also establishes NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs of 3,200 tons per year 

(tpy) and 100 tpy, respectively, for the 

year 2025 for the Tennessee portion of 

the Area. Within 24 months from this 

final rule, these budgets must be used 

for future conformity determinations. 

III. Final Actions 

EPA is approving the RACM portion 

of a SIP revision submitted by TDEC on 

October 15, 2009, for the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the Tennessee portion 

of the Chattanooga TN–GA–AL Area. 

Additionally, EPA is taking three 

separate final actions regarding 

Tennessee’s November 13, 2014 request 

to redesignate the Tennessee portion of 

the Area to attainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and related SIP revision. 

First, EPA is determining that the 

Chattanooga, TN–GA–AL Area is 

continuing to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is approving and 

incorporating the maintenance plan for 

the Tennessee portion of the Area, 

including NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the 

year 2025, into the Tennessee SIP. The 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

Area will continue to maintain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all 

of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). 

Third, EPA is determining that 

Tennessee has met the criteria under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the 

Tennessee portion of the Area for 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On this basis, EPA is approving 

Tennessee’s redesignation request for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Tennessee portion of the Area. As 

mentioned above, approval of the 

redesignation request changes the 

official designation of Hamilton County 

in the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL Area for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS from nonattainment 

to attainment, as found at 40 CFR part 

81. 

EPA is also notifying the public that 

it finds the newly-established NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion 

of the Area adequate for the purpose of 

transportation conformity. Within 24 

months from this final rule, the 

transportation partners must 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

EPA has determined that these actions 

are effective immediately upon 

publication under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). 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. Section 553(d)(1) allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication if a substantive rule 

‘‘relieves a restriction.’’ These actions 

qualify for the exception under section 

553(d)(1) because they relieve the State 

of various requirements for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga 

TN-GA-AL Area. Furthermore, section 

553(d)(3) 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.’’ EPA finds good cause to make 

these actions effective immediately 

pursuant to section 553(d)(3) because 

they do not create any new regulatory 

requirements such that affected parties 

would need time to prepare before the 

actions take effect. 

IV. 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. 

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, these actions 

merely approve state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and do not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state or Federal law. For 

these reasons, these actions: 

• Are not a significant regulatory 

actions subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• will not have disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects 

under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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 January 4, 2016. 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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks. 

Dated: October 20, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 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 new entries ‘‘RACM analysis for 

the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga Area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ and ‘‘1997 Annual PM2.5

Maintenance Plan for the Tennessee 

portion of Chattanooga TN–GA–AL 

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 

*******

RACM analysis for the Tennessee portion of the 

Chattanooga Area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Hamilton County ........... 10/15/2009 11/4/2015 [Insert citation of publication].

1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the 

Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN– 

GA–AL Area.

Hamilton County ........... 11/13/2014 11/4/2015 [Insert citation of publication].

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 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—1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS (Primary and Secondary)’’ is 

amended under ‘‘Chattanooga, TN–GA– 

AL:’’ by revising the entry for ‘‘Hamilton 

County’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.343 Tennessee. 

* * * * * 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 68257 

TENNESSEE—1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Primary and Secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 2 Type 

Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL: 

Hamilton County ....................................................................................... 11/4/2015 Attainment ..... ........................

* * * * * * * 

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

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

2This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–28009 Filed 11–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0695; FRL–9934–05] 

Diethofencarb; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of diethofencarb 

in or on banana. Sumitomo Chemical 

Company requested this tolerance under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 4, 2015. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 4, 2016, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0695 is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2014–0695 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before January 4, 2016. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2014–0695, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of December 

17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL–9918–90), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES