1608 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

modify controlled airspace at Hulett 

Municipal Airport, Hulett, WY. 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 7, 2013, and effective 

September 15, 2013 is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM WY E5 Hulett, WY [Modify] 

Hulett Municipal Airport, WY 

(Lat. 44°39′46′′ N., long. 104°34′04′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within 8.3-mile radius 

of Hulett Municipal Airport; that airspace 

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the 

surface beginning at lat. 44°54′00′′ N., long. 

105°18′00′′ W.; to lat. 44°52′00′′ N., long. 

104°00′00′′ W.; to lat. 43°56′00′′ N., long. 

103°37′00′′ W.; to lat. 43°48′00′′ N., long. 

105°16′00′′ W.; to lat. 44°20′00′′ N., long. 

105°26′00′′ W., thence to the point of 

beginning. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on 

December 19, 2013. 

Clark Desing, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00154 Filed 1–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0819; FRL–9905–15– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Environmental Speed Limit Revision 

for the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment 

area to recategorize a local 

environmental speed limit control 

measure to a transportation control 

measure. The EPA is proposing to 

approve this SIP revision because it 

satisfies the requirements of sections 

110 and part D of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), and EPA’s policy and guidance. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L); telephone (214) 665–6521; 

email address paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: December 20, 2013. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00046 Filed 1–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0285; FRL–9905–08– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Conflict of Interest and Notice of 

Finding of Disapprovals 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

disapproval. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking three actions 

pertaining to the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the State of Tennessee. First, 

EPA is providing notice of its findings 

of disapproval for a sub-element of the 

Tennessee infrastructure state 

implementation plans (SIPs) for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Specifically, EPA is providing notice of 

the disapproval of the previously 

conditionally-approved portion of the 

State board and conflict of interest 

requirements of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. These disapprovals 

were triggered automatically on July 23, 

2013, when Tennessee failed to submit 

revisions to address the CAA State 

board and conflict of interest 

requirements within the timeframes 

specified in EPA’s conditional approval 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1609 

actions. Second, EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revision submitted by 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on October 9, 

2013, as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the Act. This SIP 

revision addresses Tennessee’s 

outstanding obligations related to the 

CAA State board and conflict of interest 

requirements. Finally, EPA is proposing 

to approve the infrastructure SIP subelement related to the State board and 

conflict of interest requirements for the 

2008 Lead, 1997 annual PM2.5, 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5, and 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Approval of these 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

listed NAAQS would result in the 

disapprovals noticed above for this subelement being converted to approvals. 

Final approval of these infrastructure 

SIP sub-elements, however, is 

contingent upon final approval of the 

underlying October 9, 2013, SIP revision 

to address the CAA requirements also 

proposed through this action. EPA notes 

that all other applicable Tennessee 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 

Lead, 1997 annual PM2.5, 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5, and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

have been addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0285, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0285,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0285. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Section 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources 

Requirements 

III. Notice of Disapproval 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s Conflict of 

Interest Submission 

V. EPA’s Analysis Supporting the Proposed 

Approval of Sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. On July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45958), 

and June 18, 2013 (78 FR 36440), EPA 

approved in part, and conditionally 

approved in part, Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 2008 Lead NAAQS respectively. 

II. Section 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate 

Resources Requirements 

EPA conditionally approved a portion 

of the Tennessee infrastructure SIP 

submissions addressing the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 2008 Lead NAAQS. Specifically, 

EPA conditionally approved the portion 

of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting 

Act’s section 128(a)(1) requirements 

(hereafter ‘‘sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)’’) 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1610 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The section 128(a)(2) conflict of interest 

disclosure requirements, however, were met by 

existing provisions in the Tennessee SIP. See 77 FR 

42997, page 42998; 77 FR 45958, 45960; and 78 FR 

36440, 36442. 

2The composition of Tennessee’s Air Pollution 

Control Board is statutorily prescribed at Tennessee 

Code Annotated 68–201–104. 

3EPA’s initial final action to conditionally 

approve sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) occurred on 

July 23, 2012. Therefore, Tennessee’s commitment 

to submit the specific enforceable measures 

necessary to comply with section 128(a)(1) 

requirements was due no later than July 23, 2013. 

See 77 FR 42997. 

for each of the above NAAQS. Subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provides that 

each infrastructure SIP shall provide 

requirements ‘‘that the State comply 

with the requirements respecting State 

board under section [128 of the 

CAA]. . . .’’ Section 128 in turn 

provides that each SIP shall contain 

requirements that: (1) Any board or 

body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA shall 

have at least a majority of members who 

represent the public interest and do not 

derive a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders under the Act 

(hereafter ‘‘section 128(a)(1) 

requirements’’); and, (2) any potential 

conflicts of interest by members of such 

board or body or the head of an 

executive agency with similar powers be 

adequately disclosed (hereafter ‘‘section 

128(a)(2) requirements.’’) EPA was 

unable to fully-approve Tennessee’s 

infrastructure submissions for the above 

NAAQS with respect to sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because, at the time, the 

SIP did not include provisions to 

address the section 128(a)(1) 

requirements.1

On, March 28, 2012, TDEC 

transmitted a letter to EPA, committing 

to adopt specific enforceable measures 

into its SIP by July 23, 2013, to address 

the applicable portions of section 

128(a)(1). In Tennessee’s March 28, 

2012, letter, TDEC committed to bring 

its SIP into conformity with section 

128(a)(1) of the CAA by submitting a SIP 

revision that designated at least a 

majority of the positions on the State’s 

Air Pollution Control Board 2 as being 

subject to the ‘‘public interest’’ 

requirement. In addition, TDEC 

committed to submitting a SIP revision 

establishing requirements to ensure that 

at least a majority of the members on the 

State’s Air Pollution Control Board do 

not derive any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

CAA permits or enforcement orders. 

TDEC also described in the letter that its 

planned restrictions related to the 

‘‘significant portion of income’’ 

requirement of section 128 would 

include an exclusion for the official 

salaries of mayors of counties and 

municipalities, and for faculty members 

employed by institutions of higher 

learning. 

III. Notice of Disapproval 

EPA’s conditional approval authority 

is provided at section 110(k)(4) of the 

CAA. Consistent with the requirements 

for EPA’s exercise of the conditional 

approval authority, the commitment 

from Tennessee provided that the State 

would adopt the specified enforceable 

provisions and submit a revision to EPA 

for approval within one year of final 

action of the conditional approval.3 As 

described at section 110(k)(4), and as 

noted by EPA in its conditional 

approval actions, failure by the State to 

adopt the specified provisions and 

submit them to EPA for incorporation 

into the SIP by July 23, 2013, would 

result in the conditional approvals being 

treated as disapprovals. Tennessee 

failed to meet the July 23, 2013, 

commitment; therefore, the conditional 

approvals automatically became 

disapprovals on that date. 

EPA was not required to propose a 

finding of disapproval in order for the 

conditional approvals to convert to 

disapprovals. However, the Agency is 

hereby notifying the public of the 

finding of disapprovals for Tennessee’s 

2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

infrastructure SIPs as they relate to the 

sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requirements respecting section 

128(a)(1) requirements. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(42 U.S.C. 7501–7515) or is required in 

response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in section 

7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions 

clock. Sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requirements are not submitted 

pursuant to Part D requirements, and 

therefore, no sanctions will be triggered 

by Tennessee’s failure to submit SIP 

revisions for these requirements. The 

disapprovals do however trigger the 

requirement under section 110(c) that 

EPA promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 

2 years from the date of the disapproval 

unless the State corrects the deficiency, 

and the Administrator approves the 

plan or plan revision before the 

Administrator promulgates such FIP. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is also 

proposing to approve Tennessee’s 

October 9, 2013, SIP revision to address 

the section 128(a)(1) CAA requirements. 

Provided that EPA finalizes approval of 

TDEC’s October 9, 2013, SIP revision, 

on or before July 23, 2015 (two years 

from the date Tennessee’s sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) conditional approvals 

converted to disapprovals), Tennessee 

will have corrected the infrastructure 

SIP deficiencies and a FIP for subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) will not be 

necessary. 

As stated above, this notice of 

disapproval is limited to the section 

128(a)(1) requirements and the 

associated sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

requirements of Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. All other 

applicable aspects of these 

infrastructure SIPs have been addressed 

in separate rulemakings. See July 23, 

2012 (77 FR 42997), August 2, 2012 (77 

FR 45958), and June 18, 2013 (78 FR 

36440). 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s 

Conflict of Interest Submission 

TDEC’s October 9, 2013, SIP revision 

repeals Chapter 1200–3–17 moving the 

contents to a new Chapter 0400–30– 

17—Conflict of Interest, and adds a new 

section 0400–30–17–.02 Protecting the 

Public Interests and 0400–30–17–.05 

Policy of Ethics and the Avoidance of 

Conflicts of Interest. EPA is proposing to 

approve this change because the Agency 

has preliminarily determined that, once 

approved into the Tennessee SIP, this 

change will address the section 

128(a)(1) requirements that any board or 

body which approves permits or 

enforcement orders have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and not derive a 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under the Act. As 

noted above, TDEC submitted the 

October 9, 2013, SIP revision to meet 

the requirements outlined in EPA’s 

conditional approvals published on July 

23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), August 2, 2012 

(77 FR 45958), and June 18, 2013 (78 FR 

36440), for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

2008 Lead NAAQS respectively. 

Specifically, TDEC’s revision would 

incorporate a new rule into its SIP to 

address section 128(a)(1) requirements. 

Rule 0400–30–17–.02 Protecting the 

Public Interests contains definitions and 

requirements that will enable the Board 

to clearly determine if it has a majority 

of members who represent the public 

interest and do not derive a significant 

portion of their income from persons 

subject to permits or enforcement orders 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 1611 

under the Act. The intent of rule 0400– 

30–17–.02 is to ensure that at least half 

of the Board serves in the public interest 

and does not derive significant income 

from person subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under the Act. 

Pursuant to these provisions, in the 

event the Tennessee Air Pollution 

Control Board is unable to determine 

that it is comprised consistent with the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1), the 

revisions prevent the Board from 

hearing contested cases until such time 

as it complies with the requirements of 

section 128. 

TDEC is also revising sections 0400– 

30–17–.01 Purpose and Intent (formally 

1200–3–17–.01), 0400–30–17–.03 

Conflict of Interest on the Part of the 

Board and Technical Secretary 

(formally 1200–3–17–.02) and 0400–30– 

17–.04 Conflict of Interest in the 

Permitting of Municipal Solid Waste 

(formally 1200–3–17–.03) of the SIP and 

adding two new sections to address 

protecting the public interest and 

conflict of interest (0400–30–17–.02 

Protecting the Public Interests and 

0400–30–17–.05 Policy of Ethics and the 

Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest). EPA 

has preliminarily determined that these 

revisions, once approved into the SIP, 

will be sufficient to meet the State’s 

obligations pursuant to the requirements 

of CAA section 128(a)(1). 

V. EPA’s Analysis Supporting the 

Proposed Approval of Sub-Element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

Sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires 

that the state comply with the 

requirements respecting State Boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act. With 

respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the SIP 

includes SIP-approved provisions 

satisfying section 128 requirements. As 

previously discussed, Tennessee’s SIP 

includes provisions respecting the 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, and 

following approval of the October 9, 

2013, SIP revision to address section 

128(a)(1) requirements, would fully 

meet the applicable section 128 

requirements for the State. 

Accordingly, EPA is hereby proposing 

to approve sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

with respect to the applicable section 

128(a)(1) requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Final action to 

approve this infrastructure SIP subelement for the above NAAQS is 

contingent upon approval of the October 

9, 2013, SIP revision into the Tennessee 

SIP. Should that approval be finalized, 

EPA anticipates finalizing the subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) approvals 

concurrently through the same approval 

notice. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is notifying the public of findings 

of disapprovals for Tennessee’s 2008 

Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements as they 

relate to section 128(a)(1) requirements. 

EPA conditionally approved this 

portion of Tennessee’s infrastructure 

submissions for these NAAQS on July 

23, 2012, August 2, 2013, and June 18, 

2013. Tennessee failed to meet the July 

23, 2013, submission deadline 

associated with these commitments, 

therefore, the conditional approvals 

automatically converted to disapprovals 

on that date. EPA is not required to 

propose a finding for these 

disapprovals; however, the Agency is 

providing the public with notice of 

these findings through this action. 

Provided EPA finalizes approval of the 

October 9, 2013, SIP revision to address 

the section 128(a)(1) requirements, the 

Agency intends to fully approve the 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) sub-element of 

Tennessee’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and 

thereby, convert the disapprovals 

noticed through this action into 

approvals. 

As described above, EPA is also 

proposing to approve Tennessee’s 

October 9, 2013, SIP revision, as 

addressing applicable CAA section 

128(a)(1) requirements. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s new Chapter 0400–30–17 

Conflict of Interest which replaces 

Chapter 1200–03–17 in its entirety. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

infrastructure SIP sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to section 

128(a)(1) requirements for purposes of 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

in Tennessee. Final approval of the 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) sub-element for 

these NAAQS is contingent upon 

approval of the section 128(a)(1) 

requirements SIP revision also proposed 

for approval through this action. 

EPA notes that the subject of this 

notice is limited to the section 128(a)(1) 

requirements and the associated 

infrastructure SIP sub-element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). All other applicable 

Tennessee infrastructure SIP elements 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

have been addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1612 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 20, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31561 Filed 1–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0100; FRL–9904–97– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) 1997 

8-Hour ozone nonattainment Area 

(Area). The HGB Area consists of 

Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 

Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery 

and Waller counties. Specifically, we 

are proposing to approve portions of 

two revisions to the Texas SIP 

submitted by the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as 

meeting certain Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) 

requirements for Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) in the HGB Area. 

This action is in accordance with 

section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act 

(the Act, CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0100, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Alan Shar at shar.alan@

epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Air Planning 

Section Chief (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0100. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

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

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alan Shar (6PD–L), telephone (214) 

665–2164, email shar.alan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Outline 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we proposing? 

1. The June 13, 2007 submittal 

2. The April 6, 2010 submittal 

B. What is RACT? 

II. Evaluation 

A. What is TCEQ’s approach and analysis 

to RACT? 

B. What CTG source categories are we 

addressing in this action? 

C. Are there any negative declarations 

associated with the VOC source 

categories in the HGB Area? 

D. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination based on the June 13, 

2007 and April 6, 2010 submittals 

acceptable? 

E. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for VOC sources based on 

the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 

submittals acceptable? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing to approve portions 

of revisions to the Texas SIP submitted 

to EPA with two separate letters dated 

June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 from 

TCEQ. These two separate submittals 

are described below. 

1. The June 13, 2007 Submittal 

The June 13, 2007 submittal concerns 

revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 

Control of Air Pollution from Volatile 

Organic Compounds. In addition, the 

June 13, 2007 submittal included an 

analysis intended to demonstrate RACT 

was being implemented in the HGB 

Area as required by the CAA (Appendix 

D of the submittal). We approved 

selected revisions as meeting RACT 

under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 

some, but not all the submitted industry 

source categories in the HGB Area on 

April 2, 2013 at 78 FR 19599. In today’s 

action, we are addressing additional 

source categories covered in this SIP 

submittal. 

2. The April 6, 2010 Submittal 

In conjunction with the June 13, 2007 

submittal, we are also proposing to 

approve a part of the April 6, 2010 

revision to the Texas SIP for VOC RACT 

purposes. Specifically, we are proposing 

to find, based on the analysis in 

Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 

submittal that Texas has met certain 

RACT requirements under section 

182(b). Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 

submittal is titled ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology 

Analysis.’’ and includes source 


PMANGRUM on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1