[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39143-39145]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-3]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0565; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-034-AD;
Amendment 39-16357; AD 2010-14-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc.
(previously Utah State University); AST, Inc. (previously Firefly
Aviation Helicopter Services, and Erickson Air-Crane); Rotorcraft
Development Corporation (previously Garlick Helicopters, Inc.); Global
Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC (previously
Western International Aviation, Inc.); International Helicopters, Inc.;
Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC (previously Precision Helicopters, LLC);
Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; San Joaquin Helicopters (previously Hawkins &
Powers Aviation); S.M. &T. Aircraft (previously US Helicopter Inc., UNC
Helicopters, Inc., Southern Aero Corporation, and Wilco Aviation);
Smith Helicopters; Southern Helicopter, Inc.; Southwest Florida
Aviation International, Inc. (previously Mr. Jamie R. Hill and
Southwest Florida Aviation, Inc.); Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.
(previously Ranger Helicopter Services, Inc.); US Helicopter, Inc.
(previously Williams Helicopter Tech., Southern Aero Corp., Oregon
Helicopters and Lenair Corp); West Coast Fabrications; and Overseas
Aircraft Support Inc. (previously Williams Helicopter Corporation,
Scott Paper Company and Offshores Construction) Model AH-1G, AH-1S, HH-
1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P
Helicopters; and Southwest Florida Aviation Model UH-1B (SW204 and
SW204HP) and UH-1H (SW205) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
the Aeronautical Accessories, Inc. (AAI) Low Skid Landing Gear Forward
Crosstube (crosstube) installed on the specified helicopters. This
action requires replacing certain AAI serial-numbered crosstubes
installed on these model helicopters. This amendment is prompted by the
discovery of a defect in the raw material used in manufacturing certain
crosstubes. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent
failure of a crosstube and subsequent collapse of the landing gear.

DATES: Effective July 23, 2010.
    Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before September 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from
Aeronautical Accessories, Inc., P. O. Box 3689, Bristol, Tennessee
37625-3689, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-251-7094, fax (423) 538-
8469.

Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the AD,
any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Martin R.
Crane, ASW-170, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Rotorcraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment adopts a new AD for the
specified AAI crosstubes installed on

the specified model helicopters. This action requires replacing certain
AAI serial-numbered crosstubes installed on these model helicopters.
This amendment is prompted by AAI's discovery of a defect in a batch of
raw material used in the manufacture of these crosstubes. Preliminary
tests indicate that surface cracking to the inner wall of the tubing
was introduced during the manufacturing process. There have been no
failures reported in the field. The defect was discovered during the
forming operation at AAI. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in failure of a crosstube and subsequent collapse of the landing
gear.
    We have reviewed AAI Alert Service Bulletin No. AA-10012, dated
March 5, 2010 (ASB), which advises of a possible defect in the material
used to manufacture the crosstube, part number (P/N) 212-320-103, which
is also included in AAI Low Skid Gear Assembly Kits, P/N 412-320-500
and 412-320-502. The ASB specifies locating the serial number (S/N) of
each crosstube, and replacing, within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS),
each crosstube within the S/N range of AA-574 through AA-628, by
following the procedures contained in the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness AA-01136.
    This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of these same type designs with an affected crosstube
installed. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of a
crosstube and subsequent collapse of the landing gear. This AD
requires, within 25 hours TIS, replacing any affected crosstube with an
airworthy crosstube.
    The short compliance time involved is required because the
previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the
structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, replacing an
affected crosstube with an airworthy crosstube is required within 25
hours TIS, and this AD must be issued immediately.
    Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
    We estimate that this AD will affect 18 helicopters, and replacing
each affected crosstube will take about 5 work hours at an average
labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $4,925
per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost
impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $96,300.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect
flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for
public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data,
views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0565; Directorate
Identifier 2010-SW-034-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our
docket web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You
may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

2010-14-12 Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. (Previously Utah State
University); AST, Inc. (Previously Firefly Aviation Helicopter
Services, and Erickson Air-Crane); Rotorcraft Development
Corporation (Previously Garlick Helicopters, Inc.); Global
Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC (Previously
Western International Aviation, Inc.); International Helicopters,
Inc.; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC (Previously Precision Helicopters,
LLC); Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; San Joaquin Helicopters (Previously
Hawkins & Powers Aviation); S.M. &T. Aircraft (Previously Us
Helicopter Inc., UNC Helicopters, Inc., Southern Aero Corporation,
and Wilco Aviation); Smith Helicopters; Southern Helicopter, Inc.;
Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. (Previously Mr. Jamie
R. Hill and Southwest Florida Aviation, Inc.); Tamarack Helicopters,
Inc. (Previously Ranger Helicopter Services, Inc.); Us Helicopter,
Inc. (Previously Williams Helicopter Tech., Southern Aero Corp.,
Oregon Helicopters and Lenair Corp); West Coast Fabrications; and
Overseas Aircraft Support Inc. (Previously Williams Helicopter
Corporation, Scott Paper Company and

Offshores Construction): Amendment 39-16357. Docket No. FAA-2010-
0565; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-034-AD.

    Applicability: Model AH-1G, AH-1S, HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A,
UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P Helicopters; and
Southwest Florida Aviation Model UH-1B (SW204 and SW204HP) and UH-1H
(SW205) helicopters, certificated in any category, with Aeronautical
Accessories, Inc. (AAI), Low Skid Landing Gear Forward Crosstube
(crosstube), part number (P/N) 212-320-103, with a serial number (S/
N) prefix of ``AA'' and an S/N of 574 through 628.

    Note 1:  Crosstube, P/N 212-320-103, is also included as part of
AAI Low Skid Gear Assembly Kits, P/N 412-320-500 and 412-320-502.

    Note 2:  Crosstube, P/N 212-320-103, is installed on Rotorcraft
Development Corporation; S.M.T. Aircraft; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC;
and Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc., Model UH-1B and
UH-1H helicopters, based on Supplemental Type Certificate No.
SR01924AT.

    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless done previously.
    To prevent failure of a crosstube and subsequent collapse of the
landing gear, do the following:
    (a) Within 25 hours time-in-service, replace any affected
crosstube with an airworthy crosstube.

    Note 3:  AAI Alert Service Bulletin ASB No. AA-10012, dated
March 5, 2010, contains guidance that pertains to the subject of
this AD and references AAI Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
AA-01136, which contains the instructions for replacing the
crosstubes.

    (b) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Rotorcraft Certification Office: Attn: DOT/FAA
Southwest Region, Martin R. Crane, ASW-170, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Certification Office,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-
5170, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information about previously approved
alternative methods of compliance.
    (c) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 3250:
Landing Gear System.
    (d) This amendment becomes effective on July 23, 2010.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 25, 2010.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-16529 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Placeholder: Confidential Business Information version of “EPA’s
Response to Chemtura’s CBI Comments.”

For more information please contact Aaron Levy by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3213-3220]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1220]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353-201122; FRL-9621-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the state implementation plan
(SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to
demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. TDEC certified that the
Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter
referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). Tennessee's
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, and
clarified in a subsequent May 28, 2009, submission, addressed the
required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
however the subject of this notice is limited to infrastructure
elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). All other applicable Tennessee
infrastructure elements will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 22,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0353, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0353. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements
(C) and (J) of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure''
provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However,
intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created
uncertainty about how to proceed and many states did not provide the
required ``infrastructure'' SIP submission for these newly promulgated
NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA,
among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing
EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether
each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007.
Subsequently, EPA received an extension of the date to complete this
Federal Register notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to
make the findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008.
In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings
for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as
of January 7, 2008.
    On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans;
8-hour ozone NAAQS,'' making a finding that each state had submitted or
failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program
elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. For those states that did receive
findings, such as Tennessee, the findings of failure to submit for all
or a portion of a state's implementation plan established a 24-month
deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan to address
the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the affected
states submitted, and EPA approved, the required SIPs. However, the
findings of failure to submit did not impose sanctions or set deadlines
for imposing sanctions as described in section 179 of the CAA, because
these findings do not pertain to the elements contained in the Title I
part D plan for nonattainment areas as required under section
110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the findings of failure to submit for the
infrastructure submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to section
110(k)(5).
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k).
Tennessee's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on December
14, 2007, and was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008, for all
elements with the exception of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Tennessee was
among other states that received a finding of failure to submit because
its infrastructure submission was not complete for elements (C) and (J)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. Specifically, the
Tennessee infrastructure submission did not address the part C
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program
requirements promulgated in the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation
Rule New Source Review (NSR) Update--Phase 2 final rule (hereafter
referred to as the Ozone Implementation NSR Update) recognizing
nitrogen oxide (NOx) as an ozone precursor. See 70 FR 71612, (November
29, 2005). On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
federal approval which included revisions to Chapter 1200-03-09 of the
Tennessee NSR program that address changes promulgated in the Ozone
Implementation NSR Update. On December 5, 2011, EPA proposed to approve
Tennessee's May 28, 2009, SIP revision. See 76 FR 75845. EPA is moving
forward with final action on Tennessee's May 28, 2009, SIP revision in
an action separate from today's action. Today's action is proposing to
approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for which EPA made the
findings of failure to submit on March 27, 2008. This action is not
approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Tennessee's SIP,
once two separate proposed revisions have been incorporated, meets
certain CAA requirements. As discussed further below, final approval of
today's proposed rule is contingent upon the Agency first taking final
action to approve Tennessee's Ozone Implementation NSR Update (76 FR
75845) and PSD Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule Revision (75 FR
68265). As such, final action approving Tennessee's infrastructure
submission with respect to infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)
will not occur prior to those revisions being approved in the SIP.

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone
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. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's
October

2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressed by
Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On
December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, EPA took final
action to approve Tennessee's SIP revision, which was submitted to
comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388 (August 20, 2007). In so doing,
Tennessee's CAIR SIP revision addressed the interstate transport
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has promulgated a new
rule to address the interstate transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8,
2011) (``the Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
will be addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP
submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA
and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); and (ii)
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (director's
discretion). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for
which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address the
issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source
review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the
CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minor source
NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). In light of the comments, EPA believes
that its statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs
with respect to these four individual issues should be explained in
greater depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same
position with respect to these four substantive issues in this action
on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from
Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on
the infrastructure SIP for Tennessee.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential

substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed separately from
actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\6\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See ``Rule To
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\8\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\9\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's
implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of
section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the
same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant
infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the
monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be
necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to
an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Within this guidance document, EPA
described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the
Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs, which
it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \12\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \13\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the State's implementation plans for the NAAQS in
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \12\ Id., at page 2.
    \13\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \14\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM,
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds
true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS because
of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\16\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure
SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential
existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent
reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for
action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate
to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's
discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure
SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory
bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 76 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004)
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \18\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540
(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements (C)
and (J) of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    The Tennessee infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to elements (C) and (J), as
described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and
Operating Permits, of Tennessee's SIP pertains to the construction of
any new major stationary source or any project at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable. This regulation addresses many of the infrastructure
element 110(a)(2)(C) requirements, however, as discussed below, there
are two pending revisions to the Tennessee SIP (including revisions to
Chapter 1200-3-9) that are necessary to meet the requirements of
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These two revisions are related to
the Ozone Implementation NSR Update and the ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR
31514).
    The first pending revision to the Tennessee SIP (Ozone
Implementation NSR Update revisions) was submitted by TDEC on May 28,
2009. That revision modifies provisions of the state's SIP at Chapter
1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits. In addition to meeting
the requirements of the Ozone Implementation NSR Update, these
revisions are also necessary to address portions of the infrastructure
SIP requirements described at element 110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, the
May 28, 2009, SIP revisions address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
requirements to include NOx as an ozone precursor for permitting
purposes. These revisions involve changes to major source thresholds
for sources in certain classes of nonattainment areas, changes to
offset ratios for marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme
ozone nonattainment areas, provisions addressing offset requirements
for facilities that shut down or curtail operation, and a requirement
stating that NOx emissions are ozone precursors. On December 5, 2011,
EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's May 28, 2009, submission. See 76
FR 75845. EPA will take final action on these regulations in a separate
action from this notice.
    The second pending rulemaking pertains to revisions to the PSD
program promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule. On November 5, 2010, EPA
published a rulemaking proposing to approve Tennessee's PSD GHG
Tailoring Rule revision,\19\ which was submitted to EPA on August 30,
2010, for parallel processing.\20\ See 75 FR 68265. This proposed
revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject
to Tennessee's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions, and
thereby addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee. On January 11, 2012, EPA received Tennessee's PSD GHG
Tailoring Rule revision final submittal. EPA will take final action on
these regulations in a separate action from this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final rulemaking,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans: Final Rule'' (75 FR 82536), which narrowed its previous
approval of PSD programs as applicable to GHG-emitting sources in
SIPs for 24 states, including Tennessee. Specifically, in the PSD
Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its previous approval of Tennessee's
SIP to the extent it applied PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources below the thresholds described in the final Tailoring Rule.
The provisions of SIPs from which EPA withdrew its approval are
treated as submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by EPA.
Once a state submits a SIP revision for EPA's approval to
incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA will treat the
approval as removing the no-longer-approved provisions. See 75 FR at
82540.
    \20\ Tennessee requested parallel processing of this SIP
revision because on the date of its submittal, the revision was not
yet state-effective. Under parallel processing an EPA Regional
Office works closely with the state while developing new or revised
regulations. Generally the state submits a copy of the proposed
regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public
hearing. EPA then proceeds with a federal rulemaking to add to or
revise the SIP during approximately the same time during which the
state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA thus provide
for public comment periods on both the state and federal action in
parallel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both of these proposed SIP revisions \21\ address requisite
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), therefore, today's
action to propose approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C)
is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each of these
pending revisions into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding
today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C)
will not occur prior to final approval of these related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA's proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee's PSD/NSR
regulations which address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
requirements and (2) Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions
which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75 FR 68265).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that today's action is not proposing to approve or
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program.
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

    2. 110(a)(2)(J). In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect
to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program
in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation
requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of
section 127; and the PSD and visibility protection requirements of part
C of the Act.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits, as well
as the Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. Tennessee adopted state-wide
consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation
conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations
associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the
consultation procedures requires TDEC to consult with federal, state
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved
Tennessee's consultation procedures on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492). EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials
related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: TDEC
has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of ozone and
other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web
site with ground level ozone alerts, http://tn.gov/environment/apc/ozone/. Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency Episode Requirements, requires
that TDEC notify the public of any air pollution episode or NAAQS
violation. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide
public notification related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (Part C) PSD and visibility protection: Tennessee
demonstrates its authority to regulate new and modified sources of
ozone precursors, volatile organic compounds, and NOx to assist in the
protection of air quality in Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and
Operating Permits. As with infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C),
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance with
applicable provisions of the PSD program described in part C of the
Act. Accordingly, the pending EPA actions on the Ozone Implementation
NSR Update and GHG Tailoring Rule revisions to Tennessee's SIP are
likewise prerequisites to today's proposed action to approve the
State's infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See the discussion for
element 110(a)(2)(C) above for a description of these two pending
revisions to the Tennessee SIP.
    Both of these proposed SIP revisions \22\ address requisite
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility
protection), therefore, today's action to propose approval of
infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility protection)
is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each of these
pending revisions into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding
today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J)
(PSD and visibility protection) will not occur prior to final approval
of these related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA's proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee's PSD/NSR
regulations which addresses the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
requirements and (2) Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions
which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75 FR 68265).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. Tennessee has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze
and best available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR
51.308. These revisions are currently under review and will be acted on
in a separate action. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to implement PSD programs and to provide for visibility
protection related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, following final approval of the proposed
revisions to the Tennessee SIP regarding the Ozone Implementation NSR
Update and the PSD GHG Tailoring Rule Revision, TDEC will have
addressed elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2)
SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance to ensure
that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and
maintained in Tennessee. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's
infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these
elements, contingent upon the final approval of those revisions,
because its December 12, 2007, and May 28, 2009, submissions will then
be consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

VI. 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 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-1220 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7588]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3221]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0102]

Antiparasitic Drug Use and Resistance in Ruminants and Equines;
Public Meeting; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting entitled ``Antiparasitic Drug Use and Resistance in Ruminants
and Equines.'' The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the current
state of anthelmintic resistance in the United States and worldwide,
tools for the evaluation of antiparasitic resistance, evaluation of the
effectiveness of drugs against resistant parasites, and the scientific
rationale for the use of combinations of antiparasitic drugs in
ruminants and equines.

DATES: Date and Time: The public meeting will be held on March 5 and 6,
2012, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Location: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Washington, DC/
Rockville Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852-1699; 1-800-774-1500; FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>; http://rockvillehotel-px.rtrk.com/.
    Contact Person: Aleta Sindelar, Center for Veterinary Medicine
(HFV-3), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD
20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Requests for Oral Presentations and Registration: Interested
persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing,
on the topic of the discussion of the meeting. Written submissions may
be made to the contact person on or before February 27, 2012. Oral
presentations from the public during the open public comment period
will be scheduled between approximately 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on March 5,
2012, and 10:30 a.m. and 12 noon on March 6, 2012. Those desiring to
make oral presentations should notify the contact person by February
20, 2012, and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
information they wish to present and an indication of the approximate
time requested to make their presentation. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. The contact person will inform each
speaker of their schedule prior to the meeting.
    Registration is not required for this meeting; however, early
arrival is recommended because seating may be limited. If you need
special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Aleta
Sindelar, (see Contact Person) at least 7 days in advance.
    Comments: Regardless of attendance at the public meeting,
interested persons may submit either electronic or written comments
regarding this document. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The docket will remain open for written or electronic
comments for 60 days following the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The main purpose of the meeting is to
explore and discuss ways in which antiparasitic drugs can be used,
alone or in combination, to maximize antiparasitic drug efficacy and
minimize parasitic resistance in ruminant and equine species. Other
topics for discussion include:
    (1) The current state of anthelmintic resistance in the United
States and in other parts of the world;
    (2) The factors that have contributed to the development of
anthelmintic resistance;
    (3) The role of refugia in the management of anthelmintic
resistance;
    (4) The use of mathematical modeling as a tool for evaluating
resistance;
    (5) The use of the fecal egg count reduction test in the detection
and management of anthelmintic resistance; and
    (6) Ways to maximize the effectiveness of anthelmintics for today
and the future.
    Agenda: The meeting will allow for public comment and discussion on
current challenges regarding the use of antiparasitic drugs in
ruminants and equines. The agenda for the public meeting will be made
available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/default.htm.
    Transcripts: FDA will prepare a meeting transcript and make it
available on the Agency's Web site (see Agenda) after the meeting. FDA
anticipates that transcripts will be available approximately 30
business days after the meeting. The transcript will be available for
public examination at the Division of Dockets Management (see Comments
section of this document), between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday. A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on
CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written
requests are to be sent to Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-
1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: February 7, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-3221 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 40286]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14409]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0598; FRL-10011-45-OAR]

Petition for Partial Reconsideration of Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan
Requirements for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of action denying petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
that it has responded to a petition for partial reconsideration of a
final rule under the Clean Air Act (CAA) published in the Federal
Register on September 29, 2017, titled, ``Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan
Requirements for Texas.'' This rule removed Texas from the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs for annual emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and affirmed the continued validity of the EPA's 2012 determination
that participation in CSAPR meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for
an alternative to the application of source-specific best available
retrofit technology (BART). The November 28, 2018, petition, submitted
by Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association,
requested that the EPA reconsider the latter aspect of the rule. The
EPA has denied the petition in a letter to the petitioners for reasons
the EPA explains in that document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Corey A. Mocka, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C539-04,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711; phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Where can I get copies of this document and other related
information?

    This Federal Register notice, the petition for reconsideration, and
the response letter to the petitioner are available in the docket that
the EPA established for the rulemaking, under Docket ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0598.
    All documents in the docket are listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov. 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.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA is temporarily suspending the Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The EPA continues to carefully and
continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, local area health departments, and our federal partners
so we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    In addition, the EPA has established a website for visibility and
regional haze rulemakings at: https://www.epa.gov/visibility. This
Federal Register notice, the petition for reconsideration, and the
response letter denying the petition are also available on this website
along with other information.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA.
This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When
the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination.''
    This action is a denial of an administrative petition requesting
reconsideration of an aspect of a final rule, ``Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal Implementation Plan
Requirements for Texas,'' 82 FR 45481 (September 29, 2017). That rule
is nationally applicable; in addition, to the extent that rule may be
found to be locally or regionally applicable, the EPA found in that
rule that it is based on a determination of ``nationwide scope or
effect'' within the meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). See 82 FR at
45495-96. Further, that rule is currently being challenged in the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.\1\ For the same
reasons set forth in that rule, 82 FR at 45495-96, this action denying
a petition for reconsideration of that rule is nationally applicable
and, in addition, to the extent this action may be found to be locally
or regionally applicable, the Administrator finds that the action is
based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of
CAA section 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to CAA section 307(b), any
petition for review of this action denying the petition for
reconsideration must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit on or before September 4, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (D.C.
Cir., filed November 28, 2018).

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-14409 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P