Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7483 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 100.35–T05– 

1126 to read as follows: 

§ 100.501–T05–1126 Special Local 

Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between 

Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

location is a regulated area: All 

navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay 

between and adjacent to the spans of the 

William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges 

from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to 

the north by a line drawn parallel and 

500 yards north of the north bridge span 

that originates from the western 

shoreline at latitude 39°00′36′′ N., 

longitude 076°23′05′′ W., and thence 

eastward to the eastern shoreline at 

latitude 38°59′14′′ N., longitude 

076°20′00′′ W., and bounded to the 

south by a line drawn parallel and 500 

yards south of the south bridge span 

that originates from the western 

shoreline at latitude 39°00′16′′ N., 

longitude 076°24′30′′ W., and thence 

eastward to the eastern shoreline at 

latitude 38°58′38.5′′ N., longitude 

076°20′06′′ W. All coordinates reference 

Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland 

or any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

authorized by the Captain of the Port to 

act on his behalf. 

(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander 

means a commissioned, warrant, or 

petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard 

who has been designated by the 

Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(3) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(4) Participant means all persons and 

vessels participating in the Bay Bridge 

Paddle event under the auspices of the 

Marine Event Permit issued to the event 

sponsor and approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) The 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander may 

forbid and control the movement of all 

vessels and persons, including event 

participants, in the regulated area. 

When hailed or signaled by an official 

patrol, a vessel or person in the 

regulated area shall immediately 

comply with the directions given. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander may terminate the event, or 

the operation of any support vessel 

participating in the event, at any time it 

is deemed necessary for the protection 

of life or property. 

(2) Except for participants and vessels 

already at berth, mooring, or anchor, all 

persons and vessels within the regulated 

area at the time it is implemented are to 

depart the regulated area. 

(3) Persons desiring to transit the 

regulated area must first obtain 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore or Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander. Prior to the enforcement 

period, to seek permission to transit the 

area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore 

can be contacted at telephone number 

410–576–2693 or on Marine Band 

Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). During the enforcement period, 

to seek permission to transit the area, 

the Coast Guard Patrol Commander can 

be contacted on Marine Band Radio, 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for 

direction. 

(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

in the patrol and enforcement of the 

regulated area by other Federal, State, 

and local agencies. The Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander and official patrol 

vessels enforcing this regulated area can 

be contacted on marine band radio 

VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and 

channel 22A (157.1 MHz). 

(5) The Coast Guard will publish a 

notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and issue a 

marine information broadcast on VHF– 

FM marine band radio announcing 

specific event date and times. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 

12:30 p.m. on May 14, 2016, and if 

necessary, due to inclement weather, 

from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on May 

15, 2016. 

Dated: January 29, 2016. 

Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02814 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0250; FRL–9942–16– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: 

Removal of I/M Program in Memphis 

and Revisions to the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby 

County, Tennessee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State of Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted through the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of 

the Shelby County Health Department 

(SCHD), seeking to modify the SIP by 

removing the Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program in the City 

of Memphis, Tennessee, and by 

incorporating Shelby County’s revised 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Among other 

things, the revised maintenance plan 

updates the emissions inventory 

estimates and the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the years 

2006 and 2021 and contains an 

emissions reduction measure to offset 

the emissions increase expected from 

the termination of City of Memphis I/M 

program. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Tennessee’s May 23, 

2014, SIP revision is consistent with the 

applicable provisions of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R04–OAR–2014–0250 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0250, 

Air Regulatory Management Section, Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
7484 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The contingency measures portion of Shelby 

County’s maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, as incorporated into the SIP, 

includes the implementation of an I/M program in 

Shelby County as a contingency measure should a 

monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS occur in the former Memphis, TN–AR 

nonattainment area. The proposed SIP revision will 

not remove the I/M program from the contingency 

measures in the SIP-approved maintenance plan. 

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: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. 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–2014– 

0250. 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 

may not be 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 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: 

Richard Wong, 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. Mr. Wong 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

8726 or via electronic mail at 

wong.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is being proposed? 

II. What is the background of the Shelby 

County Maintenance area? 

III. What are the requirements of CAA 

Sections 110(l) and 193? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s submittal and request? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

I. What is being proposed? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, SIP revision 

seeking to remove the City of Memphis 

I/M program from the SIP and to 

incorporate Shelby County’s revised 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS into the SIP.1 The 

maintenance plan includes, among 

other things, an emissions reduction 

measure to offset the emissions increase 

expected from the termination of City of 

Memphis I/M program as well as 

revised emission inventory estimates 

and revised MVEBs based upon new 

modeling associated with the 

termination of the I/M program and the 

inclusion of the offset measure. The SIP 

revision also contains a technical 

demonstration that the requested 

removal of the I/M program will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS or with any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

II. What is the background of the 

Shelby County maintenance area? 

Shelby County was designated as 

nonattainment for the carbon monoxide 

(CO) NAAQS on March 3, 1978. See 43 

FR 8962. Local transportation sources in 

the City of Memphis were identified as 

the prime contributors to monitored CO 

violations in Shelby County at that time. 

The City of Memphis I/M program was 

adopted as a control strategy to attain 

the CO NAAQS. 

On July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37939), EPA 

redesignated Shelby County to 

attainment for the CO standard and 

approved the initial 10-year CO 

maintenance plan for Shelby County. 

Subsequently, further improvements in 

automotive technology led to a 

consistent reduction in locally 

monitored levels of CO. On October 25, 

2006, EPA approved the required 

second 10-year CO maintenance plan 

which demonstrated that I/M was no 

longer needed to maintain the CO 

NAAQS. See 71 FR 62384. 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

Shelby County, Tennessee, and 

Crittenden County, Arkansas, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, with a classification of 

‘moderate’ (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as the ‘‘Memphis 1997 8- 

hour Ozone Area’’). See 69 FR 23858. 

Under CAA section 182(b)(4), moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas with a 

census-defined urbanized area 

population over a given threshold are 

required to adopt basic I/M as part of 

the required SIP. 

Following the initial designations for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, Shelby 

County, the State of Tennessee, 

Crittenden County, and the State of 

Arkansas adopted additional measures 

to control ozone-forming emissions in 

the region and petitioned EPA to use its 

discretion under CAA section 181(a)(4) 

to reclassify the area from moderate to 

marginal. On September 22, 2004, EPA 

granted the petition to reclassify the 

area, which removed the SIP planning 

requirements mandated of moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas, including 

the adoption of a mandatory I/M 

program, and reset the attainment 

deadline to June 15, 2007. See 69 FR 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7485 

2The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes 

health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, 

NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2. 

3Shelby County is designated nonattainment only 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

4The Cleo facility was a gift wrap manufacturing 

plant and warehouse located at 4025 Viscount 

Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee. 

5The other revisions to the maintenance plan are 

textual changes addressing the requested removal of 

the I/M program, the inclusion of the Cleo facility 

offsets, the revised MVEBs and emissions 

inventory, and voluntary measures that may 

improve ozone air quality in the 1997 8-hour Ozone 

Area. These textual changes do not result in 

emissions increases and therefore will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. 

56697. The Area failed to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

marginal area attainment deadline. 

Consequently, on March 28, 2008, EPA 

reclassified the Area as a moderate 

nonattainment area. See 73 FR 16547. 

This reclassification reset the attainment 

deadline to June 15, 2010, with an 

attainment plan SIP revision due on 

March 1, 2009, to address all CAA 

requirements for a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area, including an I/M 

program in Shelby County pursuant to 

CAA section 184(b)(4). 

The end of the 2008 ozone monitoring 

season resulted in a design value for the 

Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area that 

met the NAAQS. Tennessee, 

Mississippi, and Arkansas prepared 

separate, but coordinated, redesignation 

requests and maintenance plans for 

their respective portions of the Area. 

Tennessee, on behalf of Shelby County, 

submitted the redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for its portion of the 

1997 8-hour Ozone Area to EPA on 

February 26, 2009, prior to the 

attainment plan SIP revision due date. 

EPA approved Tennessee’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan on January 4, 2010. See 75 FR 56. 

Although there was no longer a 

mandatory requirement to implement I/ 

M in Shelby County under section 

184(b)(4) of the CAA, the City of 

Memphis continued to operate its I/M 

program, and the SIP-approved 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS includes the 

implementation of a basic I/M program 

in Shelby County as a contingency 

measure in the event that the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS is violated in the 

1997 8-hour Ozone Area after 

redesignation. In mid-2012, the 

Memphis City Council voted to defund 

the City of Memphis I/M program 

beginning with Fiscal Year 2013/2014. 

Vehicle inspection operations at all four 

City of Memphis inspection stations 

ended on June 28, 2013. Tennessee’s 

May 23, 2014, SIP submission addresses 

the termination of this program. 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). EPA designated 

Shelby County; Crittenden County, 

Arkansas; and a portion of Desoto 

County, Mississippi, as a marginal 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 

(effective July 20, 2012) (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘Memphis 

2008 8-hour Ozone Area’’). See 77 FR 

30088 (May 21, 2012). Currently, 

monitoring data for the Memphis 2008 

8-hour Ozone Area indicates that the 

Area has attaining data for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. As noted 

previously, marginal ozone 

nonattainment areas are not required to 

adopt an I/M program. 

III. What are the requirements of CAA 

Sections 110(l) and 193? 

Section 110(l) of the CAA requires 

that a revision to the SIP not interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP) (as defined in 

section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. Tennessee’s 

May 23, 2014, SIP revision includes a 

demonstration that the requested 

actions comply with section 110(l) of 

the CAA. EPA evaluates each section 

110(l) noninterference demonstration on 

a case-by-case basis considering the 

circumstances of each SIP revision. 

EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to 

SIP revisions for all areas of the country, 

whether attainment, nonattainment, 

unclassifiable, or maintenance for one 

or more of the six criteria pollutants.2

EPA also interprets section 110(l) to 

require a demonstration addressing all 

criteria pollutants whose emissions and/ 

or ambient concentrations may change 

as a result of the SIP revision. The 

degree of analysis focused on any 

particular NAAQS varies depending on 

the nature of the emissions associated 

with the proposed SIP revision. 

In nonattainment areas, EPA will 

generally not approve a SIP revision 

under 110(l) that allows additional 

emissions of pollutants for which the 

area is designated nonattainment in the 

absence of equivalent emissions 

reductions or an attainment 

demonstration addressing the proposed 

changes to the SIP. ‘‘Equivalent’’ 

emissions reductions are reductions that 

are equal to or greater than those 

reductions achieved by the control 

measure approved in the SIP. To show 

that compensating emissions reductions 

are equivalent, adequate justification 

must be provided. The compensating, 

equivalent reductions must represent 

actual emissions reductions achieved in 

a contemporaneous time frame to the 

change of the existing SIP control 

measure in order to preserve the status 

quo level of air emissions. If the status 

quo is preserved, noninterference is 

demonstrated. In addition to being 

contemporaneous, the equivalent 

emissions reductions must also be 

permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, 

and surplus. 

Section 193 of the CAA prohibits the 

modification of control measures in 

effect before November 15, 1990, in a 

nonattainment area for any air pollutant 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of that pollutant. Shelby 

County included a section 193 analysis 

in its SIP revision because it requested 

removal of the I/M program from the 

SIP, because Shelby County is in a 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and because I/M 

programs may impact ozone air quality.3

As discussed in Section IV, Shelby 

County included emissions reductions 

from the closure of the Cleo, Inc. (Cleo) 

facility to offset the estimated increase 

in emissions due to the termination of 

the City of Memphis I/M program and 

to support the State’s analysis of its 

requested actions under CAA sections 

110(l) and 193 as they relate to the 

ozone NAAQS.4

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s submittal and request? 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, SIP 

revision seeks to remove the City of 

Memphis I/M program from the SIP and 

incorporate Shelby County’s revised 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan 

includes, among other things, an 

emissions reduction measure to offset 

the emissions increase expected from 

the termination of City of Memphis I/M 

program as well as revised emission 

inventory estimates and revised MVEBs 

based upon new modeling associated 

with the requested removal of the I/M 

program and upon the inclusion of an 

offset measure.5 The SIP revision also 

contains a technical demonstration to 

support the State’s analysis of its 

requested actions under CAA sections 

110(l) and 193. The revised MVEBs are 

discussed later on in this document. 

a. Non-interference Analyses Related to 

the Removal of the City of Memphis I/ 

M Program 

Tennessee’s SIP revision includes an 

evaluation of the impact that the 

requested removal of the City of 

Memphis I/M program would have on 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS for each criteria pollutant. This 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
7486 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment 

for the CO NAAQS in 1994. See 59 FR 37939. On 

October 25, 2006, EPA approved the second tenyear CO maintenance plan for the Memphis/Shelby 

County CO Maintenance Area with a 2017 CO 

safety margin of 480.69 tpd that did not include the 

I/M program and concluded that the I/M program 

is not necessary for maintenance of the CO 

standard. See 71 FR 62384. 

7Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is emitted from motor 

vehicles, but the amount emitted is a function of the 

sulfur content of the fuel being combusted. Because 

the I/M program did not address fuel composition, 

its termination has no impact on SO2 emissions. 

8The termination of the I/M program will have 

no impact on lead emissions because lead is no 

longer blended into on-road motor fuel. 

9On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all 

counties in Tennessee as unclassifiable/attainment 

for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. NO2 is 

a subset of NOX, and as shown in the mobile source 

modeling, termination of the I/M program does not 

increase NOX emissions. 

10Shelby County’s 2010b MOVES modeling 

conforms with EPA’s modeling guidance at the time 

of the SIP submittal. 

11Using an annual average provides a more 

conservative estimate for the total amount of 

emissions reductions needed as an offset. 

notice focuses on the ozone and 

particulate matter (PM) NAAQS because 

the termination of the I/M program is 

expected to increase VOC emissions 

from on-road mobile sources and 

because VOCs are precursors to ozone 

and PM.6789 The SIP revision includes 

revised mobile source emissions 

modeling using EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) on-road 

mobile source model to estimate the 

emissions increases associated with the 

termination of the I/M program. As part 

of its technical demonstration under 

CAA sections 110(l) and 193, 

Tennessee’s SIP revision quantifies the 

emissions reductions from the closure of 

the Cleo, Inc. facility for use as offsets 

for the requested removal of the I/M 

program from the SIP and includes 

those offsets in its revised maintenance 

plan for incorporation into the SIP. 

i. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

Ozone NAAQS 

The SIP revision quantifies the 

potential emissions increases in NOX

and VOC due to the termination of the 

I/M program using MOVES2010b,10 the 

most current EPA-approved on-road 

emission model at the time that 

Tennessee submitted its SIP revision, 

with inputs developed by the current 

travel demand model (TDM) used by the 

Memphis Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO). Shelby County 

chose 2013 as the year for analysis of 

the affected change in emissions after 

consultation with air quality and 

transportation partners, including the 

MPO and EPA, because the I/M program 

terminated in June 2013. 

The 2013 inputs for the MOVES 

model were developed by interpolating 

TDM results for 2011 and 2015 in order 

to use the model to estimate the 

emissions increases in 2013 associated 

with the termination of the Memphis I/ 

M program. The results of this modeling 

are provided in Table 1: 

TABLE 1—ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS COMPARISON FOR THE 2013 OZONE SEASON

No I/M With I/M Change 

tons/day tons/day tons/day percentage 

VOC ................................................................................................................. 13.609 13.257 0.352 2.66 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 29.652 29.652 0.000 0.00 

The County’s on-road mobile source 

modeling predicts that the termination 

of the City of Memphis I/M program 

will increase 2013 ozone season VOC by 

approximately 0.352 tons per ozone 

season day and will not increase NOX

emissions. Therefore, the SIP revision 

includes VOC emissions reductions that 

offset 128.48 tons per year (tpy) (0.352 

tons per day (tpd) multiplied by 365 

days per year).11

Tennessee’s SIP revision seeks to 

incorporate the emissions reductions 

from the closure of the Cleo facility for 

use as offsets for the termination of the 

I/M program. The company ceased 

operation in 2011 and submitted a letter 

to Shelby County on January 4, 2012, 

requesting termination of its Title V air 

permit effective at the end of 2011, 

making the reductions permanent and 

enforceable. SCHD issued a Title V 

termination letter on April 3, 2012. 

Shelby County quantified the emissions 

reductions associated with the Cleo 

facility shutdown by averaging the 

certified annual emissions reported by 

the facility to the County in 2009 and 

2010, the last two full years of 

operation. In 2009 and 2010, Cleo 

reported and paid air pollution fees on 

actual VOC emissions of 239.1 tons and 

254.5 tons, respectively, resulting in an 

annual average of 246.8 tpy (0.676 tpd 

across the calendar year). During the 

same operational period, Cleo averaged 

1.09 tpy of NOX emissions (0.003 tpd 

across the calendar year). Shelby County 

banked the Cleo shutdown emissions 

reductions for use as industrial 

permitting offsets in the Memphis 2008 

8-hour Ozone Area and has elected to 

remove 0.387 tpd (0.352 tpd multiplied 

by the 1.1:1 offset ratio in CAA section 

182(a)(4)) of these shutdown VOC 

emissions reductions from the bank to 

offset the estimated VOC emissions 

increase resulting from the termination 

of the I/M Program. EPA proposes to 

agree with the County’s technical 

demonstration. 

ii. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM 

NAAQS 

Shelby County evaluated the potential 

for the requested removal of the I/M 

program to interfere with maintenance 

of the PM NAAQS in the County 

because studies have shown that VOCs 

can be a precursor to PM in certain 

chemical and meteorological 

circumstances. The County concluded 

that the termination of the I/M program 

would not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

because the PM2.5 design values for the 

Area are below the PM2.5 NAAQS; VOC 

emissions are projected to decline 

through 2021 without the I/M program; 

and the VOC emissions reductions from 

the shutdown of the Cleo facility offset 

the projected VOC emissions increases 

from the termination of the I/M 

program. EPA proposes to agree with 

the County’s technical demonstration. 

b. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

Maintenance Plan—Emissions Inventory 

Update 

The revised maintenance plan 

included in Tennessee’s SIP revision 

contains an updated emissions 

inventory with emissions projections 

that account for the termination of the 

I/M program and the closure of the Cleo 

facility. Shelby County emissions for 

2021 remain the same as those provided 

in the Shelby County 1997 8-hour 

Ozone Maintenance Plan approved by 

EPA on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 56), with 

the exception of on-road mobile and 

point source emissions. On-road 

emissions for 2006 and 2021 in the 

revised maintenance plan were 

remodeled using MOVES2010b, and 

they replace the on-road emissions 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7487 

estimates derived from the previous 

model, MOBILE6.2. The MOVES model 

includes the road class VMT as an input 

file and generates on-road mobile source 

emissions estimates that take into 

consideration expected Federal tailpipe 

standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels. 

The MOVES modeling accounts for the 

termination of the I/M program in 2013. 

Point source emissions for 2006 

remain the same; however, Tennessee 

adjusted the 2021 point source 

emissions for VOCs and NOX from the 

2010 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan by including the emissions 

reductions resulting from the closure of 

the Cleo facility. The change in 

emissions for on-road and point source 

is reflected in Table 2, and projections 

for on-road mobile, point, area, and nonroad mobile sources are presented in 

Table 3. The revised maintenance 

inventory demonstrates that future 

emissions of VOCs and NOX through 

2021 will remain below those in base 

year 2006, thereby indicating that 

Shelby County will continue to 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through the end of the maintenance 

plan period. 

TABLE 2—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[Ozone season tons per day] 

VOC 

Type inventory Year On-road Point 

Base year ........................................................................................................................................... 2006 ¥1.23 No change 

Projection ........................................................................................................................................... 2021 ¥2.80 ¥0.676 

NOX

Base year ........................................................................................................................................... 2006 2.14 No change 

Projection ........................................................................................................................................... 2021 ¥0.96 ¥0.003 

TABLE 3—NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[Ozone season tons per day] 

VOC 

Type inventory Year Area Non-road On-road * Point ** Total Baseline 

Base year ..................... 2006 37.531 22.698 23.986 13.665 97.880 97.880 

Projection ..................... 2021 47.039 19.734 8.558 17.715 93.046 97.880 

NOX

Base year ..................... 2006 2.101 26.657 58.013 14.458 101.229 101.229 

Projection ..................... 2021 2.695 21.607 16.035 18.373 58.710 101.229 

* 2006 on-road emissions include emissions reductions from the City of Memphis I/M program, and the 2021 on-road emissions projections include emissions increases from the termination of the City of Memphis I/M program. 

** The 2021 point source projections for VOC and NOX account for the shutdown of the Cleo facility and have been reduced from the 2021 

VOC and NOX point source projections in the 2010 maintenance plan by 0.676 tpd and 0.003 tpd, respectively. 

c. What are the Revised MVEBs? 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, 

maintenance plan revision updates the 

MVEBs for 2006 and 2021 using on-road 

mobile source emissions estimates from 

MOVES and removes the MVEBs for 

2009 and 2017. The revised 2021 MVEB 

accounts for the termination of the I/M 

program and the shutdown of the Cleo 

facility. These budgets are used by 

transportation authorities to assure that 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects are consistent with, and 

conform to, the maintenance of 

acceptable air quality in the Memphis 

1997 8-hour Ozone Area. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new projects that would expand 

the capacity of roadways cannot go 

forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 

set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of such 

transportation activities to a SIP. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEBs for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEB is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions in the 

maintenance demonstration that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. 

The MVEB serves as a ceiling on 

emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
7488 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

12The transportation conformity provisions of the 

CAA require interagency consultation in the 

development of MVEBs. The consultation process 

involves federal agencies (EPA, Federal Highway 

Administration, and Federal Transit 

Administration), state and local transportation 

agencies, state and local air agencies, and 

metropolitan planning organizations. 

13Shelby County calculated the NOX safety 

margin by subtracting 2021 projected emissions 

from 2006 baseline emissions and further 

subtracting 0.387 tpd to account for the offset 

applied to the removal of the City of Memphis I/ 

M program (i.e., 97.880 tpd (2006 baseline)¥93.046 

tpd (2021 projection)¥0.387 tpd (offset applied) = 

4.447 tpd (NOX safety margin)). 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEB. 

According to 40 CFR 93.118, a 

maintenance plan must establish 

MVEBs for the last year of the 

maintenance plan (in this case, 2021). 

The updated MVEBs in the revised 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS are for the base year 

(2006) and the last year of the first 10- 

year maintenance plan (2021). The 2021 

MVEB reflects the total on-road mobile 

source emissions for 2021 plus an 

allocation from the available VOC and 

NOX safety margins. The MVEBs are 

presented in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SHELBY COUNTY VOC AND

NOX MVEBS

(Ozone season tons per day) 

2006 2021 

NOX .......... 58.013 56.428 

VOC .......... 23.986 12.782 

The previously approved 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan for Shelby 

County contained interim MVEBs for 

years 2006, 2009, and 2017 in addition 

to the required maintenance year MVEB 

of 2021. The consensus formed during 

the interagency consultation process 

was that MVEBs should only be set for 

2006 and 2021.12 Therefore, the revised 

maintenance plan removes the interim 

budgets for years 2009 and 2017. 

Under 40 CFR 93.101, the safety 

margin is the difference between the 

attainment level and the projected level, 

from all sources, of emissions in the 

maintenance plan. The attainment level 

of emissions is the level of emissions 

during one of the years in which Shelby 

County met the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The safety margin, in whole or 

in part, can be allocated to the 

transportation sector as long as total 

emissions from all categories remain 

below the attainment level. 

For the revised 2021 MVEBs, Shelby 

County allocated ninety-five percent of 

the VOC and NOX safety margin 

emissions to the MVEB.13 Specifically, 

Shelby County allocated 4.224 tpd of 

the available VOC safety margin and 

40.393 tpd of the available NOX safety 

margin to the 2021 MVEBs. The 

remaining safety margin in 2021 for 

VOC is 0.223 tpd and for NOX is 2.126 

tpd. The allocation from the safety 

margins is available because of 

reductions of VOC and NOX that have 

occurred, and are projected to occur 

through 2021, primarily from mobile 

sources. VOC and NOX reductions are 

anticipated from non-road mobile 

source categories, but not to the extent 

that they occur in the on-road source 

category. VOC reductions from area 

sources are also anticipated to occur due 

to control techniques instituted on a 

federal level on industrial 

manufacturing activities. However, 

future population increases act to 

balance area source reductions such that 

there is a net increase in VOC emissions 

in this source category. 

The MVEB is constrained to assure 

that the total emissions from all source 

categories do not exceed the 2006 

attainment year emissions. The MVEBs 

are consistent with the plan for 

maintaining total emissions from all 

source categories at or below the 2006 

VOC and NOX emission levels through 

2021. For future year conformity 

determinations, transportation 

authorities must rely on the MVEBs 

unless plan revisions occur. Through 

this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to 

approve the MVEBs for NOX and VOC 

for 2006 and 2021 for Shelby County 

because EPA believes that the County 

maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with the emissions at the levels 

of the budgets. After thorough review, 

EPA is proposing to approve the budgets 

because they are consistent with 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2021. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s May 23, 2014, SIP revision 

that seeks to remove the City of 

Memphis I/M program from the SIP and 

incorporate Shelby County’s revised 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS that includes an 

emission reduction measure to offset the 

emission increases associated with the 

requested removal of the I/M program 

from the SIP. The revised maintenance 

plan also contains updated attainment 

inventories and updated MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC for 2006 and 2021 for 

Shelby County. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 

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, 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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 29 / Friday, February 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7489 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 28, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02844 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0751; FRL–9942–06– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register on December 2, 

2015, proposing to approve a revision to 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

December 2, 2015 proposal provided for 

a 30-day public comment period ending 

January 4, 2016. One document in the 

docket for this proposal was not listed 

at www.regulations.gov until after the 

comment period had closed. EPA is 

reopening the comment period for 15 

days to ensure the public has an 

opportunity to review and comment on 

all material in the docket. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

February 29, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0751 at 

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

For comments submitted at 

Regulations.gov, follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

For either manner of submission, the 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document reopens the public comment 

period established in the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75442) (FRL– 

9939–64–Region 9). In that document, 

EPA solicited comments on a proposed 

rule to approve revisions to the 

SJVUAPCD’s Rule 4702 (Internal 

Combustion Engines) and referenced a 

technical support document (TSD) 

containing further information about the 

rule. Due to an administrative error, the 

TSD was not available on 

www.regulations.gov until after the 

close of the comment period on January 

4, 2016. Although EPA did not receive 

any public comments on this proposal 

or any requests for the TSD, EPA is 

reopening the comment period for 

another 15 days to ensure that the 

public has an opportunity to review and 

comment on all material in the docket. 

Accordingly, any comments on this 

proposed rule must be received on or 

before February 29, 2016. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: February 2, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02845 Filed 2–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0855; FRL–9942–14– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho: 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

submittal by the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ) 

demonstrating that the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. 

Specifically, the Idaho DEQ reviewed 

monitoring and modeling data to show 

that sources within Idaho do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment, or interfere with 

maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any 

other state. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0855 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 


asabaliauskas on DSK9F6TC42PROD with PROPOSALS