[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 113 (Thursday, June 11, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35607-35612]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12536]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0618; FRL-10010-05-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN; Removal of the Vehicle I/M Program, Middle
Tennessee Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), through a letter dated February 26, 2020.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the removal of Tennessee's
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program requirements for Davidson,
Sumner, Rutherford, Williamson and Wilson Counties in Tennessee (also
known as the Middle Tennessee Area) from the federally-approved SIP
because removing the requirements is consistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and applicable regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0618 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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 EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9222. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Davidson County began implementing an I/M program in 1985. See
Davidson County Resolution No. R83-1471. The program required all
light-duty motor vehicles registered in Davidson County to be inspected
annually for compliance with emissions performance and anti-tampering
test criteria.
    With the passage of the 1990 CAA amendments, the Middle Tennessee
Area was designated as a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1979
1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Under section
182 of the CAA, I/M programs are required for areas that are designated
as moderate or above nonattainment for ozone, and the existing I/M
program in Davidson County was expanded to the Middle Tennessee Area.
In 1994, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision containing an I/M program
for the Middle Tennessee Area, which EPA approved. See 60 FR 38694
(July 28, 1995). As part of that

action, EPA incorporated the State's I/M rules at Tennessee Air
Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) 1200-03-29 and Davidson County's
I/M rules at Regulation 8 into the SIP. See id. On October 30, 1996,
EPA redesignated the Middle Tennessee Area to attainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and approved a maintenance plan with the I/M program as a
control strategy. See 61 FR 55903. The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS was
revoked, effective June 15, 2005. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). In December 2002, the
Middle Tennessee Area entered into EPA's Early Action Compact (EAC)
program. As part of the EAC for the Middle Tennessee Area, the I/M
program was identified as an existing control strategy in the SIP. The
Middle Tennessee Area met the EAC requirements by December 31, 2007,
demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result of
meeting the EAC agreement, on April 2, 2008, EPA designated the Middle
Tennessee Area as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR
17897. The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked, effective April 6,
2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    The ozone NAAQS was revised in 2008 to a value of 0.075 ppm and
again in 2015 to 0.070 ppm. See 73 FR 16483 (March 27, 2008) and 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015). The Middle Tennessee Area was designated as
unclassifiable/attainment and attainment/unclassifiable for the 2008
and 2015 ozone NAAQS, respectively. See 40 CFR 81.343. The Middle
Tennessee Area is currently in attainment with all ozone NAAQS. See id.
    On May 15, 2018, a Tennessee law was signed that states that ``no
inspection and maintenance program shall be employed in this state on
or after the effective date of this act.'' See Tenn. Code Ann. Sec.
68-201-119. The Tennessee law states that it ``shall take effect [120]
calendar days following the date on which the [EPA] approves a revised
state implementation plan. . .'' See Motor Vehicles--Inspection and
Inspectors--Air Pollution, 2018 Tennessee Laws Pub. Ch. 953 (H.B.
1782). Accordingly, Tennessee submitted the February 26, 2020, SIP
revision requesting that EPA remove the requirements to implement an I/
M program for the Middle Tennessee Area.\1\ A description of the SIP
revision and EPA's analysis is provided in Section II below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tenn. Code Ann. Sec.  68-201-119(c) allows Tennessee
counties to retain local I/M programs under certain conditions.
However, as Tennessee is requesting removal of the I/M program from
the SIP, EPA's analysis in this proposal assumes that no I/M program
will be implemented in the Middle Tennessee Area. This proposed
action does not preclude local I/M programs from being retained at a
local level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal?

    Through a letter dated February 26, 2020,\2\ Tennessee requested
that TAPCR 1200-03-29 and Davidson County's Regulation 8 be removed
from the Tennessee SIP. In addition, Tennessee requested that EPA
remove the requirement for the Middle Tennessee Area to implement an I/
M program as part of the EAC that was approved by EPA into the non-
regulatory portion of the Tennessee SIP on August 26, 2005. See 70 FR
50199. Tennessee also provided a non-interference demonstration to
support the removal of the vehicle I/M program for the Middle Tennessee
Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA received Tennessee's SIP revision on February 27, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section I above, the Middle Tennessee Area
implemented the I/M program requirements as a control strategy to meet
the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and expanded it as part of the EAC
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Currently, Davidson, Sumner,
Rutherford, Williams and Wilson Counties in Tennessee are designated
attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or attainment/unclassifiable for
all ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.343.
    EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the I/M requirements for
the Middle Tennessee from the Tennessee SIP, including TAPCR 1200-03-29
and Davidson County's Regulation 8.\3\ EPA is also proposing to find
that the removal of the I/M program requirements for the Middle
Tennessee Area is consistent with CAA section 110(l). Section 110(l) of
the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any
applicable requirements concerning attainment, reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirements of the CAA. EPA evaluates section 110(l) non-interference
demonstrations on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of
each SIP revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all
NAAQS that are in effect. For I/M SIP revisions, the most relevant
pollutants to consider are ozone precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ TAPCR 1200-03-29 is applicable only to Davidson, Hamilton,
Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties. In a separate
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), EPA proposed to remove
Hamilton County from that chapter of the SIP-approved Tennessee
rules. EPA is proposing in this NPRM to remove Davidson, Rutherford,
Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties from TAPCR 1200-03-29.
Additionally, EPA is proposing that if it removes all applicable
counties from TAPCR 1200-03-29, to also remove the remainder of
TAPCR 1200-03-29 from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, Tennessee's February 26, 2020, SIP revision
included a non-interference demonstration to support the State's
request to remove the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for the
Middle Tennessee counties of Davidson, Sumner, Rutherford, Williams,
and Wilson. Tennessee's non-interference demonstration evaluates the
impact that the removal of the I/M program for the Middle Tennessee
Area would have on Tennessee's ability to attain and maintain any of
the NAAQS. Based on the analysis below, EPA is proposing to find that
removal of the I/M program requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area
meets the requirements of the CAA section 110(l) because it would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or any other
requirement of the CAA.4 5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The initial designations for the course particulate matter
(PM10) NAAQS were completed on March 15, 1991. See 56 FR
11101. The entire state of Tennessee was designated as attainment
for PM10 and has been attainment for every
PM10 standard thereafter. The pollution control systems
for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not
designed to reduce emissions of PM10; therefore, removing
the I/M program requirements will not have any impact on ambient
concentrations of PM10. EPA proposes to find that removal
of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for the Middle
Tennessee Area would not interfere with continued attainment or
maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS.
    \5\ On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS to 75 parts per billion (ppb) which became
effective on August 23, 2010. See 75 FR 35520. On January 9, 2018,
EPA designated most of the state of Tennessee, including the
counties in the Middle Tennessee Area, as attainment/unclassifiable
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 83 FR 1098. EPA has
designated Sullivan County, Tennessee, as nonattainment and Sumner
County as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013), and 81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016).
The pollution control systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles
subject to the I/M program are not designed to reduce emissions for
SO2; therefore, removing the I/M program requirements
will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of
SO2. EPA proposes to find that removal of the SIP-
approved I/M program requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area
would not interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS.
    \6\ On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised lead NAAQS
of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. See 73 FR 66964. On November 22,
2011, EPA designated a majority of the State of Tennessee, including
the counties in the Middle Tennesse Area as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The Bristol Area in Sullivan
County was designated nonattainment; and the Knox County Area was
later designated unclassifiable. See 76 FR 72907; see also 75 FR
71033 (November 22, 2011). Subsequently, the Bristol Area was
redesignated to attainment. See 81 FR 44210 (July 7, 2016).
Effective January 1, 1996, EPA banned the sale of leaded fuel for
use in on-road vehicles. The pollution control systems for light-
duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are not designed
to reduce emissions for lead; therefore, removal of the I/M program
requirements would not cause an increase in emissions of lead. EPA
proposes to find that removal of the SIP-approved I/M program
requirements for the Middle Tennesse Area would not interfere with
continued attainment or maintenance of the lead NAAQS.

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

Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    On February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202), EPA promulgated the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million (ppm).\7\ On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38856), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm.\8\
Subsequently, on March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 ppm to provide increased
protection of public health and the environment. See 73 FR 16436 (March
27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS retain the same general form and
averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997 but are set at a more
protective level. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS are attained when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. On
October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), EPA published a final rule lowering the
level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm or 70 ppb and retaining
the same form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked, effective June 15,
2005. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
    \8\ The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked, effective April 6,
2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Middle Tennessee Area is designated as attainment or
unclassifiable/attainment for all ozone NAAQS.\9\ See 40 CFR 81.343.
Ambient air quality monitoring for ozone is being conducted at five
locations in the Middle Tennessee Area. In the February 26, 2020, SIP
revision, the State provides recent 8-hour ozone design values in ppb
(see Table 1). The values in Table 1 below indicate attainment of the
2015 8-hour NAAQS of 70 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Visit https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2019/#home or
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data for air quality data
including current status and trends for all NAAQS.

                               Table 1--Middle Tennesse Area Monitor Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Ozone design value, ppb
            Site name            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2013-2015       2014-2016       2015-2017       2016-2018       2017-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Lane, Davidson County...              62              66              66              66              65
Percy Priest, Davidson County...              65              67              64              67              65
Rockland Recreation Area, Sumner              67              67              66              66              66
 County.........................
Fairview Middle School,                       62              61              60              60              60
 Williamson County..............
Cedars of Lebanon State Park,                 62              64              63            * 64            * 61
 Wilson County..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not a valid design value because the monitor did not meet data completeness requirements in 2018. There was an
  issue following the installation of the new monitoring shelter and TDEC invalidated data leading up to the
  correction of the issue.

    Tennessee's non-interference analysis includes modeling to
calculate ozone precursor emissions, as well as a sensitivity analysis
to demonstrate the impact of emissions increases on monitored ozone
values. Tennessee's non-interference demonstration utilized EPA's
MOVES2014 emission modeling system to estimate ozone precursor
emissions for mobile sources--both on-road and non-road. Tennessee
chose 2022 as the future year for the State's non-interference
demonstration because it is the year that it anticipates that the
Middle Tennessee Area will cease implementation of the I/M program due
to the CAA's SIP processing timeframe and the language of Tenn. Code
Ann. Sec.  68-201-119. The point source emissions for the Middle
Tennessee Area were obtained from the 2014 version 2 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) and grown to the year 2022 using the appropriate EPA
growth factors or using engineering judgment, as detailed in Appendices
H and I of the February 26, 2020, SIP revision. For non-point sources,
the inventory was developed using EPA established methodologies
published by EPA,\10\ as detailed in Appendix J of the February 26,
2020, SIP revision. Tennessee calculated projected emissions in the
year 2022 by adding all four sectors (on-road, point, non-road, and
non-point) together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 2017 NEI Final Plan: Revised July 2018, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/2017_nei_plan_final_revised_jul2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the total projected emissions in 2022 with the I/M
program in the Middle Tennessee Area. Table 3 shows the total projected
emissions in 2022 without the I/M program in the Middle Tennessee
Area.\11\ By 2022, emission benefits resulting from Tennessee's I/M
program for the Middle Tennessee Area are predicted to be a 478.52 ton
per year (tpy) reduction of NOX, and a 593.10 tpy reduction
of VOCs. On a percentage basis, removal of the I/M program will result
in a 4.2 percent increase in NOX emissions and a 12.4
percent increase in VOCs. The differences in the two scenarios for all
four sectors combined is a 1.9 percent increase in NOX and a
1.7 percent increase in VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Since the I/M program only impacts emissions in the on-road
sector, the projected emissions in other sectors (point, non-road
and non-point) are the same between the ``with the I/M program'' and
the ``without the I/M program'' scenarios.

Table 2--Middle Tennessee Area Total 2022 Projected Emissions of NOX and
                    VOC (in tpy) With the I/M Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sector                         NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On road.................................          11,309           4,780
Point...................................           4,455           3,867
Nonroad.................................           5,413           3,451
Non-Point...............................           3,504          22,690
                                         -------------------------------

    Total...............................          24,681          34,788
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3--Middle Tennessee Area Total 2022 Projected Emissions of NOX and
                  VOC (in tpy) Without the I/M Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sector                       NOX tpy         VOC tpy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On road.................................          11,788           5,373
Point...................................           4,455           3,867
Nonroad.................................           5,413           3,451
Non-Point...............................           3,504          22,690
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................          25,160          35,382
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 4--Summary of NOX and VOC Emissions Increases Associated With
         Removing the Middle Tennessee Area From the I/M Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          NOX  emissions
                                              in 2022     VOC  emissions
                                                              in 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total On-Road Emissions for Middle TN             11,309           4,780
 Counties in Current I/M Program (tpy)..
Total On-Road Emissions after Removing            11,788           5,373
 Middle TN Counties from I/M Program
 (tpy)..................................
Total Emissions for Middle TN Counties            24,681          34,788
 in Current I/M Program (all sectors)
 (tpy)..................................
Total Emissions after Removing Middle TN          25,160          35,382
 Counties from I/M Program (all sectors)
 (tpy)..................................
Emissions Increases (tpy)...............             479             593
Emissions Increases (% of Total On-Road             4.2%           12.4%
 Emissions for Middle TN Counties)......
Emissions Increases (% of Total                     1.9%            1.7%
 Emissions for Middle TN Counties, all
 sectors)...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further quantify the potential impact of removal of the I/M
program, Tennessee completed a photochemical modeling sensitivity
analysis. As shown in Table 5, the sensitivity analysis indicates that
the largest increase in ozone concentration would be at the Percy
Priest monitor at 0.262 ppb.

      Table 5--Results of Sensitivity Analysis, Increases of Ozone
         Concentrations at Monitors in the Middle Tennessee Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Sensitivity analysis
                                                     corresponding ozone
          Site name              2016-2018 ozone       increase due to
                                  design value      combined NOX and VOC
                                                          increases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Lane, Davidson                          66                 0.249
 County.....................
Percy Priest, Davidson                          67                 0.262
 County.....................
Rockland Recreation Area,                       66                 0.196
 Sumner County..............
Fairview Middle School,                         60                 0.186
 Williamson County..........
Cedars of Lebanon State                         64                 0.178
 Park, Wilson County........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. EPA therefore proposes to find that
removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for the Middle
Tennessee Area would not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

Non-Interference Analysis for the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS

    On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS
of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.\12\ See 62 FR 38652
(July 18, 1997). On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the annual
primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR
3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS was revoked for
areas designated as attainment, effective October 24, 2016. See 81
FR 58010 (August 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) and April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844),
designating all counties in the Middle Tennessee Area attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 13, 2009 (74 FR

58688), and on January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206), EPA published notices
determining that the counties in the Middle Tennessee Area were
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively.
    In Tennessee's February 26, 2020, SIP revision, the State concluded
that the removal of the counties in the Middle Tennessee Area from the
Tennessee's SIP-approved I/M program would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The pollution
control systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M
program are not designed to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5
and sulfate (i.e., the primary precursor for PM2.5 formation
in the Southeast); therefore, removing counties from the program will
not have any impact on ambient concentrations of PM2.5
NAAQS. In addition, ambient air monitoring shows that PM2.5
24-hour design value for Middle Tennessee in 2019 is 18 [mu]g/m\3\,
which is below the 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Also, the annual
design value in 2019 is 9.3 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the annual NAAQS
of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The small increase in NOX emissions of
1.9 percent is expected to only cause a small increase in
PM2.5 design value.
    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. EPA therefore proposes to find that
removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for the Middle
Tennessee Area would not interfere with continued attainment or
maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.

Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS
13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The annual standard of 53 ppb is based on the annual mean
concentration. See 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 NO2 1-hour standard is set at 100 ppb, based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010).
On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in Tennessee as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR
9532.
    Based on the technical analysis in Tennessee's February 26, 2020,
SIP revision, the projected increase in total NOX emissions
(of which NO2 is a component) in 2022 is 1.9 percent.\14\
This increase is not expected to interfere with continued attainment of
the NO2 NAAQS in the Middle Tennessee Area. The 2019 design
value for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS for the Middle Tennessee Area
is 50 ppb.
    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. For these reasons, EPA proposes to
find that removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for the
Middle Tennessee Area would not interfere with continued attainment or
maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS.

Non-Interference Analysis for the Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS

    EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 1971 and has retained the standards
since its last review of the standards in 2011. The primary NAAQS for
CO consist of: (1) An 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, not to be exceeded more
than once in a year (i.e., the second highest, non-overlapping 8-hour
average concentration cannot exceed the standard); and (2) a 1-hour
average of 35 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once in a year. The
Middle Tennessee Area has always been designated as unclassifiable/
attainment for the CO NAAQS.
    In Tennessee's February 26, 2020, SIP revision, the State concluded
that the removal of counties in the Middle Tennessee Area from the SIP-
approved I/M program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of the CO NAAQS. MOVES2014 mobile emissions modeling results show an
increase in CO emissions of 6.1 percent in the Middle Tennessee Area in
2022 as a result of removing the I/M program for the Middle Tennessee
Area. This increase is not expected to interfere with continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Middle Tennessee Area. The 2018
design values for Tennessee for the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS are 1.8
ppm and 1.6 ppm, respectively. Preliminary design values for Tennessee
for the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS in 2019 were 1.6 ppm and 1.8 ppm,
respectively, which are less than 20 percent of the CO NAAQS for both
the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
    EPA has evaluated the State's analysis and preliminarily agrees
with its findings and conclusions. For these reasons, EPA proposes to
find that removal of the SIP-approved I/M program requirements for the
Middle Tennessee Area would not interfere with continued attainment or
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the removal of the I/M requirements for
the Middle Tennessee Area (i.e., Davidson, Sumner, Rutherford,
Williamson and Wilson Counties) from the Tennessee SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the removal of the I/M program requirements for
the Middle Tennessee Area from the federally-approved SIP because
removing the requirements is consistent with the CAA and applicable
regulations.

IV. 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 they meet the criteria of the CAA. This proposed action merely
proposes to approve 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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).
    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.

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: May 29, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-12536 Filed 6-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


(vi) Measure test atmosphere A80. Allow for a stable
measurement reading and record it as S'n, where n = 0.
    (vii) The above readings for Z'0 and S'0
should be taken at least four (4) hours prior to the beginning of test
day 1.
    (viii) At the beginning of each test day, adjust the line voltage
and room temperature to the values given in table B-4 of this subpart
(or to the corresponding alternative temperature if a wider temperature
range is being tested).
    (ix) Measure test atmosphere A0 continuously for at
least twelve (12) continuous hours during each test day.
    (x) After the 12-hour zero drift test (step ix) is complete, sample
test atmosphere A0. A stable reading is not required.
    (xi) Measure test atmosphere A20 and record the stable
reading (in ppm) as P1. (See Figure B-4 in appendix A.)
    (xii) Sample test atmosphere A30; a stable reading is
not required.
    (xiii) Measure test atmosphere A20 and record the stable
reading as P2.
    (xiv) Sample test atmosphere A0; a stable reading is not
required.
    (xv) Measure test atmosphere A20 and record the stable
reading as P3.
    (xvi) Sample test atmosphere A30; a stable reading is
not required.
    (xvii) Measure test atmosphere A20 and record the stable
reading as P4.
    (xviii) Sample test atmosphere A0; a stable reading is
not required.
    (xix) Measure test atmosphere A20 and record the stable
reading as P5.
    (xx) Sample test atmosphere A30; a stable reading is not
required.
    (xxi) Measure test atmosphere A20 and record the stable
reading as P6.
    (xxii) Measure test atmosphere A80 and record the stable
reading as P7.
    (xxiii) Sample test atmosphere A90; a stable reading is
not required.
    (xxiv) Measure test atmosphere A80 and record the stable
reading as P8. Increase the chart speed to at least 10
centimeters per hour.
    (xxv) Measure test atmosphere A0. Record the stable
reading as L1.
    (xxvi) Quickly switch the test analyzer to measure test atmosphere
A80 and mark the recorder chart to show, or otherwise
record, the exact time when the switch occurred.
    (xxvii) Measure test atmosphere A80 and record the
stable reading as P9.
    (xxviii) Sample test atmosphere A90; a stable reading is
not required.
    (xxix) Measure test atmosphere A80 and record the stable
reading as P10.
    (xxx) Measure test atmosphere A0 and record the stable
reading as L2.
    (xxxi) Measure test atmosphere A80 and record the stable
reading as P11.
    (xxxii) Sample test atmosphere A90; a stable reading is
not required.
    (xxxiii) Measure test atmosphere A80 and record the
stable reading as P12.
    (xxxiv) Repeat steps within paragraphs (e)(9)(viii) through
(e)(9)(xxxiii) of this section, each test day.
    (xxxv) If zero and span adjustments are made after the readings are
taken on test days 3, 6, 9, or 12, complete all adjustments; then
measure test atmospheres A0 and A80. Allow for a
stable reading on each, and record the readings as Z'n and S'n,
respectively, where n = the test day number (3, 6, 9, or 12). These
readings must be made at least 4 hours prior to the start of the next
test day.
    (10) Determine the results of each day's tests as follows. Mark the
recorder chart to show readings and determinations.
    (i) Zero drift. (A) Determine the 12-hour zero drift by examining
the strip chart pertaining to the 12-hour continuous zero air test.
Determine the minimum (Cmin.) and maximum (Cmax.) measurement readings
(in ppm) during this period of 12 consecutive hours, extrapolating the
calibration curve to negative concentration units if necessary.
Calculate the 12-hour zero drift (12ZD) as 12ZD = Cmax.--Cmin. (See
Figure B-5 in appendix A.)
    (B) Calculate the 24-hour zero drift (24ZD) for the n-th test day
as 24ZDn = Zn - Zn-1, or 24ZDn = Zn - Z'n-1 if zero adjustment was made
on the previous test day, where Zn = \1/2\(L1+L2)
for L1 and L2 taken on the n-th test day.
    (C) Compare 12ZD and 24ZD to the zero drift limit specifications in
table B-1. Both 12ZD and 24ZD must be within the specified limits
(inclusive) to pass the test for zero drift.
    (ii) Span drift.
    (A) Calculate the span drift (SD) as:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.144

or if a span adjustment was made on the previous test day,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.145

where
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.146

n indicates the n-th test day, and i indicates the i-th measurement
reading on the n-th test day.

    (B) SD must be within the span drift limits (inclusive) specified
in table B-1 to pass the test for span drift.
    (iii) Lag time. Determine, from the strip chart (or alternative
test data record), the elapsed time in minutes between the change in
test concentration (or mark) made in step (xxvi) and the first
observable (two times the noise level) measurement response. This time
must be equal to or less than the lag time limit specified in table B-1
to pass the test for lag time.
    (iv) Rise time. Calculate 95 percent of measurement reading
P9 and determine, from the recorder chart (or alternative
test data record), the elapsed time between the first observable (two
times noise level) measurement response and a response equal to 95
percent of the P9 reading. This time must be equal to or
less than the rise time limit specified in table B-1 to pass the test
for rise time.
    (v) Fall time. Calculate five percent of (P10 -
L2) and determine, from the strip chart (or alternative test
record), the elapsed time in minutes between the first observable
decrease in measurement response following reading P10 and a
response equal to L2 + five percent of (P10 -
L2). This time must be equal to or less than the fall time
limit specification in table B-1 to pass the test for fall time.
    (vi) Precision. Calculate precision (both P20 and
P80) for each test day as follows:
    (A)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.147

    (B)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.148

    (C) Both P20 and P80 must be equal to or less
than the precision limits specified in table B-1 to pass the test for
precision.

                  Table B-5--Symbols and Abbreviations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
BL...............................  Analyzer reading at the specified LDL
                                    test concentration for the LDL test.
Bz...............................  Analyzer reading at 0 concentration
                                    for the LDL test.
DM...............................   Digital meter.
Cmax.............................  Maximum analyzer reading during the
                                    12ZD test period.
Cmin.............................  Minimum analyzer reading during the
                                    12ZD test period.
i................................  Subscript indicating the i-th
                                    quantity in a series.
IE...............................  Interference equivalent.
L1...............................  First analyzer zero reading for the
                                    24ZD test.

L2...............................  Second analyzer zero reading for the
                                    24ZD test.
n................................  Subscript indicating the test day
                                    number.
P................................  Analyzer reading for the span drift
                                    and precision tests.
Pi...............................  The i-th analyzer reading for the
                                    span drift and precision tests.
P20..............................  Precision at 20 percent of URL.
P80..............................  Precision at 80 percent of URL.
ppb..............................  Parts per billion of pollutant gas
                                    (usually in air), by volume.
ppm..............................  Parts per million of pollutant gas
                                    (usually in air), by volume.
R................................  Analyzer reading of pollutant alone
                                    for the IE test.
RI...............................  Analyzer reading with interferent
                                    added for the IE test.
ri...............................  The i-th analyzer or DM reading for
                                    the noise test.
S................................  Standard deviation of the noise test
                                    readings.
S0...............................  Noise value (S) measured at 0
                                    concentration.
S80..............................  Noise value (S) measured at 80
                                    percent of the URL.
Sn...............................  Average of P7 * * * P12 for the n-th
                                    test day of the SD test.
S'n..............................  Adjusted span reading on the n-th
                                    test day.
SD...............................  Span drift
URL..............................  Upper range limit of the analyzer's
                                    measurement range.
Z................................  Average of L1 and L2 readings for the
                                    24ZD test.
Zn...............................  Average of L1 and L2 readings on the
                                    n-th test day for the 24ZD test.
Z'n..............................  Adjusted analyzer zero reading on the
                                    n-th test day for the 24ZD test.
ZD...............................  Zero drift.
12ZD.............................  12-hour zero drift.
24ZD.............................  24-hour zero drift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 53--Optional Forms for Reporting Test
Results

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.149

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.150

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.151

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.152

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11FE11.153

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

PART 58--AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE

    5. The authority citation for part 58 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, 7601(a), 7611, and 7619.

Subpart B--[Amended]

    6. Section 58.10, is amended by adding paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  58.10  Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network
assessment.

    (a) * * *
    (7) A plan for establishing CO monitoring sites in accordance with
the requirements of appendix D to this part shall be submitted to the
Administrator by July 1, 2012. The plan shall provide for all required
monitoring stations to be operational by January 1, 2013.
* * * * *
    7. Section 58.13 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  58.13  Monitoring network completion.

* * * * *
    (e) The network of CO monitors must be physically established no
later than January 1, 2013, and at that time, must be operating under
all of the requirements of this part, including the requirements of
appendices A, C, D, and E to this part.
    8. Appendix D to Part 58 is amended by revising section 4.2 to read
as follows:

Appendix D to Part 58--Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring

* * * * *
    4.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design Criteria.

    4.2.1 General Requirements. (a) One CO monitor is required to
operate co-located with any required near-road NO2
monitor, as required in Section 4.3.2 of this part, in CBSAs having
a population of 1,000,000 or more persons. Continued operation of
existing, but non-required SLAMS CO sites using an FRM or FEM is
required until discontinuation is approved by the EPA Regional
Administrator, per section Sec.  58.14 of this part.
    4.2.2 Regional Administrator Required Monitoring.
    (a) The Regional Administrators, in collaboration with states,
may require additional CO monitors above the minimum number of
monitors required in 4.2.1 of this part, where the minimum
monitoring requirements are not sufficient to meet monitoring
objectives. The Regional Administrator may require, at his/her
discretion, additional monitors in situations where data or other
information suggest that CO concentrations may be approaching or
exceeding the NAAQS. Such situations include, but are not limited
to, (1) Characterizing impacts on ground-level concentrations due to
stationary CO sources, (2) characterizing CO concentrations in urban
downtown areas or urban street canyons, and (3) characterizing CO
concentrations in areas that are subject to high ground level CO
concentrations particularly due or enhanced by topographical and
meteorological impacts.
    (b) The Regional Administrator and the responsible State or
local air monitoring agency should work together to design and/or
maintain the most appropriate CO network to address the data needs
for an area, and include all monitors under this provision in the
annual monitoring network plan.
    4.2.3 CO Monitoring Spatial Scales. (a) Microscale and middle
scale measurements are the most useful site classifications for CO
monitoring sites since most people have the potential for exposure
on these scales. Carbon monoxide maxima occur primarily in areas
near major roadways and intersections with high traffic density and
often in areas with poor atmospheric ventilation.
    (1) Microscale--Microscale measurements typically represent
areas in close proximity to major roadways, within street canyons,
over sidewalks, and in some cases, point and area sources. Emissions
from roadways result in high ground level CO concentrations at the
microscale, where concentration gradients generally exhibit a marked
decrease with increasing downwind distance from major roads, or
within urban downtown areas including urban street canyons.
Emissions from stationary point and area sources, and non-road
sources may, under certain plume conditions, result in high ground
level concentrations at the microscale.
    (2) Middle scale--Middle scale measurements are intended to
represent areas with dimensions from 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. In
certain cases, middle scale measurements may apply to areas that
have a total length of several kilometers, such as ``line'' emission
source areas. This type of emission sources areas would include air
quality along a commercially developed street or shopping plaza,
freeway corridors, parking lots and feeder streets.
* * * * *
    9. Appendix E to Part 58 is amended by revising sections 2 and
6.2(a), 6.2(b), 6.2(c), and Table E-4 to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 58--Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

* * * * *

2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement

    The probe or at least 80 percent of the monitoring path must be
located between 2 and 15 meters above ground level for all ozone and
sulfur dioxide monitoring sites, and for neighborhood or larger
spatial scale Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5,
PM2.5, NO2, and carbon monoxide sites. Middle
scale PM10-2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets
between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. Microscale Pb,
PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 sites are
required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground
level. Microscale near-road NO2 monitoring sites are
required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground
level. The inlet probes for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that
are being used to measure concentrations near roadways must be
between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. The probe or at least 90
percent of the monitoring path must be at least 1 meter vertically
or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets,
penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If the probe
or a significant portion of the monitoring path is located near the
side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the
windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind
direction during the season of highest concentration potential for
the pollutant being measured.
* * * * *
    6. * * *
    6.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes and Monitoring Paths. (a)
Near-road or urban street canyon CO monitoring microscale sites are
intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate
source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area. In order to
provide some reasonable consistency and comparability in the air
quality data from microscale sites, the CO monitor probe shall be as
near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes
of the target road segment; but shall not be located at a distance
greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest
edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.
    (b) Downtown urban area or urban street canyon (microscale) CO
monitor inlet probes must be located at least 10 meters from an
intersection and preferably at a midblock location. Midblock
locations are preferable to intersection locations because
intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space
than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably
also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.
    (c) In determining the minimum separation between a neighborhood
scale monitoring site and a specific roadway, the presumption is
made that measurements should not be substantially influenced by any
one roadway. Computations were made to determine the separation
distance, and Table E-2 of this appendix provides the required
minimum separation distance between roadways and a probe or 90
percent of a monitoring path. Probes or monitoring paths that are
located closer to roads than this criterion allows should not be
classified as neighborhood scale, since the measurements from such a
site would closely represent the middle scale. Therefore, sites not
meeting this criterion should be classified as middle scale.
* * * * *

                                Table E-4 of Appendix E to Part 58--Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Horizontal and
                                                                                vertical distance from  Distance from trees to      Distance from
                                        Scale (maximum      Height from ground to   supporting structures  probe, inlet or 90% of    roadways to probe,
             Pollutant                 monitoring path     probe, inlet or 80% of  \2\ to probe, inlet or    monitoring path \1\    inlet or monitoring
                                       length, meters)       monitoring path \1\   90% of monitoring path         (meters)           path \1\ (meters)
                                                                                \1\ (meters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 3,4,5,6.......................  Middle (300 m).......  2-15                    >1                      >10                     N/A.
                                    Neighborhood Urban,
                                     and Regional (1 km).

CO 4,5,7..........................  Micro, middle (300 m)  2-7: 2-15               >1                      >10                     2-10 for downtown
                                    Neighborhood (1 km)..                                                                           urban area or street
                                                                                canyon microscale;
                                                                                <=50 for near-road
                                                                                microscale; see
                                                                                Table E-2 of this
                                                                                appendix for middle
                                                                                and neighborhood
                                                                                scales.
O3 3,4,5..........................  Middle (300 m).......  2-15                    >1                      >10                     See Table E-1 of this
                                    Neighborhood, Urban,                                                                            appendix for all
                                     and Regional (1 km).                                                                           scales.
NO2 3,4,5.........................  Micro (Near-road [50-  2-7 (micro); 2-15 (all  >1                      >10                     <=50 meters for near-
                                     300]).                 other scales)                                                           road microscale;
                                    Middle (300m)........                                                                          See Table E-1 of this
                                    Neighborhood, Urban,                                                                            appendix for all
                                     and Regional (1 km).                                                                           other scales.
Ozone precursors (for PAMS) 3,4,5.  Neighborhood and       2-15                    >1                      >10                     See Table E-4 of this
                                     Urban (1 km).                                                                                appendix for all
                                                                                scales.
PM,Pb 3,4,5,6,8...................  Micro: Middle,         2-7 (micro);            >2 (all scales,         >10 (all scales)        2-10 (micro); see
                                     Neighborhood, Urban   2-7 (middle PM10	2.5);   horizontal distance                             Figure E-1 of this
                                     and Regional.         2-15 (all other          only)                                           appendix for all
                                                            scales)                                                                 other scales.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A--Not applicable.
\1\ Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring, middle, neighborhood, urban, and regional
  scale NO2 monitoring, and all applicable scales for monitoring SO2,O3, and O3 precursors.
\2\ When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
\3\ Should be >20 meters from the drip-line of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the drip-line when the tree(s) act as an obstruction.
\4\ Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes
  above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text).
\5\ Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building or a wall.
\6\ The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is
  dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur,
  ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
\7\ For microscale CO monitoring sites in downtown areas or street canyons (not at near-road NO2 monitoring sites), the probe must be >10 meters from a
  street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
\8\ Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter
  apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-2404 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


316b REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE LOG Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAIC Date: June 26, 2002 Company Name: Johnson Screens Street Address: New Brighton, MN City/ State/ ZIP:

Person Contacted: Hank Wells & Mark Watson Title:

Telephone #: 800 833 9473 ext 287 ( used this #) 651 638 3287 ( Gave this direct #) In brief previous contact with Al Smith, was referred to: Linda Cook ( General info) Ext 218 ( left message) Hank wells ( design info) Ext 287 Mark Watson Hank Wells Asked about percent open area for coarse mesh traveling screens compared to fine mesh screens. He was not certain about traveling screens since they are made by a different mfr. Suggested I contact Envirex. He said their fine screens could range from as low as 30% to 70 80% depending on spacing and wire size. He sent via email several brochures ( one of which shows table with open area as a function of spacing and 3 available wire sizes). He said percent open area is calculated as slot width divided by slot width plus wire width. Said that when they provide competitive bids with traveling screens their costs usually come out about ½ lower. Mentioned a recent job in Iowa City, IA, I think it was a water plant. He said Johnson Scren was more than willing to assist EPA and felt it was important that EPA got good information. They are the largest supplier of t screens in the US He also asked if I had talked to Mark Watson Mark Watson Mark Watson called later in the day ( responding to message left with Linda) He was not able provide traveling screen % open area info but offered to answer questions in future. We briefly discussed retrofitting traveling screens. He said that one solution they have employed was to install a plate over the screen opening. Passive screens such as t screens are attached to the front of the plate. He said they sometimes leave one or two traveling screens in place because their action tends to help sweep debris away.

He said that all three, Linda, Mark, and himself could be contacted to answer questions.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37007-37009]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0397]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Stockton Ports Baseball Club Fourth of July
Fireworks Display, Stockton, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters off of Weber Point in Stockton, California in support
of a fourth of July fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is
established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from
the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0397 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0397 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying two locations: the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Lieutenant Junior Grade Liezl Nicholas, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the
rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by
the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators,
spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the
safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these
regulations in effect during the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

Basis and Purpose

    Stockton Ports Baseball Club will sponsor the Stockton Ports
Baseball Club Fourth of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2011 on the
navigable waters off of Weber Point, in Stockton, California. The
fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This safety zone
is issued to establish a temporary restricted area on the waters
surrounding the fireworks launch site during loading of the
pyrotechnics, and during the fireworks display. This restricted area
around the launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and
other property from the hazards associated with the pyrotechnics. The
Coast Guard has granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the
fireworks display.

Discussion of Rule

    During the set up of the fireworks and until the start of the
fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the

navigable waters around the fireworks launch site within a radius of
100 feet. From 9:30 p.m. until 9:50 p.m., the area to which the
temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the
navigable waters around the fireworks launch site within a radius of
1,000 feet. The fireworks launch site will be located on land in
position 37[deg]57'15.69'' N, 121[deg]17'39.74'' W (NAD 83).
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks launch site while the
fireworks are set up, and until the conclusion of the scheduled
display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and
vessels a safe distance away from the fireworks launch site to ensure
the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum
impact. The entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft
engaged in recreational activities.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities and sightseeing. This rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for several reasons: (i) vessel traffic can pass safely around the
area, (ii) vessels engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing
have ample space outside of the effected portion of the areas off of
Stockton, CA to engage in these activities, (iii) this rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this
safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not

require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a
temporary safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T11-422 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-422  Safety Zone; Stockton Ports Baseball Club Fourth of
July Fireworks Display, Stockton, CA.

    (a) Location. (1) This temporary safety zone is established for the
waters off of Weber Point in Stockton, CA. The fireworks launch site
will be located on land in position 37[deg]57'15.69'' N,
121[deg]17'39.74'' W (NAD 83).
    (2) During the loading of the fireworks, and until the start of the
fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable
waters around the fireworks site within a radius of 100 feet. From 9:30
p.m. until 9:50 p.m. on July 4, 2010, the area to which the temporary
safety zone applies will increase in size to encompass the navigable
waters around the fireworks site within a radius of 1,000 feet.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 9:15 p.m. to
10 p.m. on July 4, 2011.

    Dated: June 9, 2011.
Cynthia. L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-15793 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P