Federal Register Vol. 80, No.59,

I. The Petitioner

The petition states that “NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15037A481). The petition further states that “NEI's members include all entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear material licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. NEI asserts that it is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of licensed facilities on matters involving generic NRC regulatory policy issues and generic operational and technical regulatory issues.”

Michael D. Tschiltz, Director, Risk Assessment, NEI, submitted the petition for rulemaking dated January 15, 2015, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations in § 50.69 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors,” to clarify the scope of applicability to include holders of COLs. The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under § 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking,” and the petition has been docketed as PRM-50-110.

The entities that may use § 50.69, as set forth in paragraph (b)(1), are holders of a license to operate a light-water reactor (LWR) under 10 CFR part 50; holders of a renewed LWR license under 10 CFR part 54; applicants for a construction permit or operating license under 10 CFR part 50; and applicants for a design approval, a combined license, or manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52. The regulation does not apply to holders of COLs.

The petitioner is requesting that § 50.69 be amended to clarify the scope of its applicability to include holders of COLs.

Section 50.69 provides an alternative set of requirements for the treatment of SSCs. Under this framework, licensees (or applicants), using a risk-informed process to categorize SSCs according to their safety significance, can remove SSCs of low safety significance from the scope of certain identified special treatment requirements. For SSCs of safety significance, existing requirements are retained, and § 50.69 would add requirements that ensure SSC performance remains consistent with that relied upon in the categorization process for beyond design basis conditions. These requirements can be voluntarily adopted by LWR licensees and applicants. Section 50.69 was most recently amended by the NRC in a rulemaking titled, “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear power Reactors,” published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26511), and later as a final rule on November 22, 2004 (69 FR 68008). The final rule became effective on December 22, 2004.

The applicability and scope of the NRC's regulations in § 50.69 currently applies to a holder of a license to operate a LWR under 10 CFR part 50; a holder of a renewed LWR license under 10 CFR part 54; an applicant for a construction permit or operating license under 10 CFR part 50; or an applicant for a design approval, a COL, or manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52. A holder of a COL issued under 10 CFR part 52 is not included in the group of entities that may take advantage of the provisions of § 50.69.

The specific reasons for excluding COL holders from the group of entities that may take advantage of the provisions of § 50.69 were not discussed in the Federal Register notice for either the proposed or final “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors” rule. However, as discussed at a public meeting on October 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12341A153), the NRC staff provided the following reasons:

1. After issuance of the COL, the staff was concerned primarily that implementation of the provisions of § 50.69 in the midst of construction and Inspections, Tests, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) closure would lead to proposed changes in the NRC's approved requirements on some SSCs prior to the Commission making a finding regarding the COL ITAAC acceptance criteria in accordance with § 52.103(g). Such a situation could create an unexpected budget shortfall related to a higher resource burden for the NRC due to an increased number of license amendments submitted for review concurrent with supporting construction and ITAAC completion and complicate the NRC's ability to reach a finding under § 52.103(g).

2. Since the proposed rule allowed for the provisions of § 50.69 to be adopted as part of the COL application, COL applicants could take advantage of these provisions as part of the COL review. This approach would be consistent with the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation regarding efficiency, since the staff believed that implementation of the provisions of § 50.69 following the Commission's making a finding per § 52.103(g) would require substantial additional resources to conduct the review of license amendments necessary to implement the provisions of § 50.69.

The NRC did not receive any comments from the nuclear industry nor the general public on the absence of COL holders from the applicability provisions of the proposed rule. The final rule, as issued, retained this feature of the proposed rule.

The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-50-110 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting public comment at this time.

Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.2 These products include residential clothes dryers, the subject of this Request for Information (RFI).

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

On April 21, 2011, DOE published a direct final rule (2011 Direct Final Rule) amending the energy conservation standards for residential clothes dryers. 76 FR 22454. The amended energy conservation standards were based on a new metric, the combined energy factor (CEF), that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode. DOE established an initial compliance date of April 24, 2014 for the amended standards. Subsequently, DOE amended the compliance date for the new standards to January 1, 2015. 76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011).

Thus, DOE must publish either a NOPR proposing amended standards for residential clothes dryers or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended by August 24, 2017. This RFI seeks input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on whether new or amended standards pertaining to residential clothes dryers are warranted. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether amended standards would: (1) Yield a significant savings in energy use; and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including residential clothes dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the affected products compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance expenses;

3. The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the affected products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i))

DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this notice as the first step in the analysis process and is requesting input and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical analyses.

In the next section, DOE has identified a variety of questions that DOE would like to receive input on to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for residential clothes dryers may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not be identified specifically in this notice. As part of the process for soliciting information, DOE is providing a document titled “APPENDIX—EXAMPLES OF RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYER DATA” (available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058) to provide examples of the type of data needed for the rulemaking analyses.

DOE defines an electric clothes dryer to mean “a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is electricity and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s).” (10 CFR 430.2) Similarly, DOE defines a gas clothes dryer to mean “a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is gas and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s).” (10 CFR 430.2) As part of this rulemaking, DOE intends to address energy conservation standards for both electric and gas clothes dryers.

DOE's test procedures for clothes dryers are codified in appendix D1 and appendix D2 to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). On January 6, 2011, DOE issued an amended test procedure for residential clothes dryers, in which it (1) adopted the provisions for the measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use along with a new energy efficiency metric, Combined Energy Factor (CEF), that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode; and (2) adopted several amendments to the clothes dryer test procedure concerning active mode. 76 FR 972. DOE created a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B that contained the amended test procedure for clothes dryers.

DOE issued a final rule on August 14, 2013 (August 2013 TP Final Rule), to amend the clothes dryer test procedure, in which it: (1) Updated appendix D1 to reference the latest edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” Edition 2.0 2011-01; (2) amended appendix D1 to clarify the cycle settings used for the test cycle, the requirements for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, the installation conditions for console lights, the method for measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable weighing scale range, and the allowable use of a relative humidity meter; and (3) created a new appendix D2 that includes, in addition to the amendments discussed above, testing methods for measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. 78 FR 49608. Manufacturers must use either the test procedures in appendix D1 or D2 to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes dryers as of January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix D1 for certain representations and appendix D2 for other representations.

DOE may consider energy conservation standards using the new appendix D2 test method to more accurately account for the effects of automatic cycle termination.

Interested parties have commented publicly, as part of the previous test procedure rulemaking process and more recently through other public channels, that the DOE clothes dryer test procedures may not produce results that are representative of consumer use with regards to test load size and composition, cycle settings for the test cycle, and other provisions in the test procedure. DOE also notes that Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) recently published reports evaluating clothes dryer performance using the new appendix D2 test method and investigating new automatic cycle termination concepts for improving clothes dryer efficiency.3 In consideration of these concerns regarding the test procedure and the recent clothes dryer automatic cycle termination research, DOE initiated an effort to determine whether amendments to the test procedure are warranted. DOE held a public meeting on November 13, 2014, to solicit comments from interested parties on potential changes to the clothes dryer test procedure.4

The market and technology assessment provides information about the residential clothes dryer industry that will be used throughout the rulemaking process. For example, this information will be used to determine whether the existing product class structure requires modification based on technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of such products. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to analyze the residential clothes dryer industry and market. DOE will identify and characterize the manufacturers of clothes dryers, estimate market shares and trends, address regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of clothes dryers. DOE will also review product literature, industry publications, and company Web sites. Additionally, DOE will consider conducting interviews with manufacturers to assess the overall market for residential clothes dryers.

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers, DOE established four product classes for vented clothes dryers and two product classes for ventless clothes dryers. DOE established separate product classes for ventless clothes dryers because of the unique utility they offer consumers, i.e., the ability to have a clothes dryer in a living area where vents are impossible to install, such as an apartment in a high-rise building, where venting dryers would be precluded due to venting restrictions. As part of the previous rulemaking, DOE established product classes for ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers and ventless electric combination washer/dryers.5 The product classes established in the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking are presented in Table II.1.

Based on DOE's review of products available on market, DOE notes that at least one manufacturer offers a ventless clothes dryers with a drum capacity greater than 4.4 cubic feet. As a result, DOE tentatively proposes to establish an additional product class for ventless electric standard clothes dryers listed in Table II.2.

Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on the proposed product classes and seeks information regarding other product classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. In particular, DOE requests comment on the determination to consider a separate product class for ventless electric clothes dryers with drum capacities of 4.4 cubic feet or greater. If commenters believe that additional product classes are warranted, DOE requests comment as to how those classes should be configured, as well as energy use data and utility or performance-related information justifying the need for a separate class.

The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a preliminary list of technologies that could potentially be used to improve the efficiency of residential clothes dryers. The purpose of the screening analysis is to screen out technologies that are not appropriate for consideration in the engineering analysis due to the following four factors: (1) Technological feasibility, (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service, (3) impacts on product utility to consumers, and (4) health and safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section (4)(a)(4)) The technologies that pass the screening are considered in the engineering analysis.

DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will include the technology options considered during the most recent residential clothes dryer standards rulemaking, including those that were screened out in the previous rulemaking.

DOE plans to initially consider all of the technologies for residential clothes dryers identified in the previous standards rulemaking. These technology options are listed in Table II.3.

Based on a preliminary review of the clothes dryer market and information published in recent trade publications, technical reports, and manufacturer literature, DOE has observed that the results of the technology screening analysis performed during the previous rulemaking remain largely relevant for this rulemaking.

Issue C.2 DOE seeks information on how the above technologies, and any other technologies that may improve clothes dryer efficiency: (1) Apply to the current market; and (2) improve efficiency of clothes dryers as measured according to the DOE test procedure under appendix D2.

The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class. The baseline model is used as a reference point for each product class in the engineering analysis and the life-cycle cost and payback-period analyses.

For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that just meets the current minimum energy conservation standards by a small margin.

In developing the baseline efficiency levels, DOE initially considered the current standards for residential clothes dryers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015 presented in Table II.4.

Since the last standards rulemaking, DOE amended the clothes dryer test procedures as part of the August 2013 TP Final Rule to create a new appendix D2 that includes testing methods for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. Because DOE is proposing to consider energy conservation standards based on the appendix D2 test method, DOE would have to establish baseline efficiency levels considering this new test procedure.

As part of the August 2013 TP Final Rule, DOE presented test data for each product class comparing the efficiencies measured under the appendix D1 and D2 test procedures. 78 FR 49614-15. In addition, ORNL and PNNL conducted testing on separate models according to the appendix D1 and the new appendix D2 test procedures.6 Table II.5 presents the average measured CEF values using appendix D1 and D2 for each product class using the test data from DOE, ORNL, and PNNL.

Using these data, DOE developed tentative baseline efficiency levels by applying the percentage difference in efficiency between appendix D1 and D2, as presented in Table II.5, to the energy conservation standards for clothes dryers required on January 1, 2015, presented in Table II.4. The proposed baseline efficiency levels are presented in Table II.6. DOE did not have sufficient data to characterize the baseline efficiency level for the newly proposed product class, ventless electric standard clothes dryers.

Issue D.1 DOE requests comment on approaches that it should consider when determining the baseline efficiency levels for each product class, including information regarding the merits and/or limitations of such approaches. DOE also requests additional test data to characterize the baseline efficiency levels for each product class. In particular, DOE requests appendix D2 test data broken down by standby/off mode and active mode energy use for each product class, including the newly proposed product class for ventless electric standard dryers. DOE requests additional test data for residential clothes dryers showing the difference in measured efficiency using the appendix D1 test procedure and the appendix D2 test procedure.

DOE will analyze each product class to determine the relevant trial standard levels (TSLs) and to develop incremental manufacturing cost data at each higher efficiency level. DOE generally selects incremental efficiency levels based on a review of industry standards and the efficiency of products available on the market.

For the vented clothes dryer product classes, DOE tentatively plans to consider an efficiency level associated with the current standard level nominal values without the adjustment used to develop the baseline efficiency levels discussed above. Because there is a large gap between these two efficiency levels, DOE is tentatively planning to consider evenly spaced gap fill efficiency levels. DOE also plans to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR performance specification requirements 7 and the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award criteria for advanced clothes dryers.8 Table II.7 shows the proposed efficiency levels for the vented clothes dryer product classes.

For the ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryer and ventless electric combination washer/dryer product classes, DOE is again proposing an incremental efficiency level associated with the current standard level nominal values. For ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers, DOE is proposing an additional gap fill level between the baseline and the current standard level nominal value. DOE also plans to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR performance specification requirements and the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award criteria. For ventless electric combination washer/dryers, because limited data are available regarding the efficiency of products measured according to the new appendix D2 test procedure, DOE is tentatively proposing to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the relative increase in efficiency levels considered for the 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis. For ventless electric standard clothes dryers, DOE notes that one recently introduced ventless electric standard clothes dryer qualifies for the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award. DOE plans to consider an efficiency level associated with this unit. However, DOE is unaware of any data to determine other incremental efficiency levels for ventless electric standard clothes dryers. The proposed efficiency levels for the ventless clothes dryer product classes are presented in Table II.8 and Table II.9.

Issue D.3 DOE seeks input concerning the efficiency levels it tentatively plans to use for each product class for collecting incremental cost data from manufacturers of residential clothes dryers. In particular, DOE seeks additional data on the efficiency of products measured according to the new appendix D2 test procedure to characterize the range of efficiencies available on the market for each product class. DOE also seeks input on appropriate maximum technologically feasible efficiency levels whether any additional intermediate efficiency levels should be considered and the basis for why those levels should be selected.

In order to create the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE intends to use an efficiency-level approach, supplemented with reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the market), to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each efficiency level.

DOE will analyze technologies and associated costs representative of baseline units as part of the reverse-engineering process. DOE intends to perform reverse engineering for each product class being analyzed. Whenever possible, DOE will attempt to reverse engineer test units that share similar platforms to better identify the efficiency benefits and costs of design options. As units are torn down, all design options used in them are noted and reviewed. Prior to tear down, DOE also plans to conduct limited testing to establish what control strategies are being used by manufacturers in conjunction with design options and platform design. Unit testing may include the measurement of disaggregated energy consumption to identify the relationship between particular components and control strategies taken by manufacturers to achieve higher efficiency levels. As part of the reverse-engineering process, DOE will attempt to generate a cost-efficiency relationship for each efficiency level identified. DOE also requests incremental cost data for each efficiency level. DOE intends the data to represent the average industry-wide incremental production cost for each technology.

To be useful in the manufacturer impact analysis, manufacturer cost information should reflect the variability in baseline models, design strategies, and cost structures that can exist among manufacturers. This information allows DOE to better understand the industry and its associated cost structure, and helps DOE predict the most likely impact of new energy efficiency regulations. For example, the reverse-engineering methodology allows DOE to estimate the “green-field” costs of building new facilities, yet the majority of plants in any given industry are comprised of a mix of assets in different stages of depreciation. Interviews with manufacturers not only help DOE refine its capital expenditure estimates, but they also allow DOE to refine its estimates regarding depreciation and other financial parameters.

DOE will refine the cost-efficiency data it generates through the reverse-engineering activities with information obtained through follow-up manufacturer interviews and, as necessary, information contained in the market and technology assessment and further review of publicly available cost and performance information.

Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on using an efficiency-level approach supplemented with reverse engineering to determine the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for residential clothes dryers.

Issue D.6 DOE also requests incremental cost data for each clothes dryer efficiency level as well as information about the design options associated with each efficiency level. DOE intends the data to represent the average industry-wide incremental production cost for each technology.

EPCA also requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or the performance of a covered product likely to result from the imposition of a new standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As part of its analysis of higher efficiency levels, DOE will consider whether new standards may impact the utility of residential clothes dryers.

Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on whether any new standards may impact the utility of clothes dryers. If such impacts exist, can the effects be quantified? If so, how?

To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) calculations, DOE needs to determine the cost to the residential consumer of baseline products that satisfies the currently applicable standards, and the cost of the more-efficient unit the consumer would purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a “markup” to the manufacturer's selling price, DOE is able to estimate the residential consumer's price.

For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE used distribution channels, based on data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), to characterize how products pass to the consumer. For clothes dryers, the main actors are manufacturers and retailers. Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three parties: (1) The manufacturers producing the products; (2) the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products. DOE plans to use the same approach in the current rulemaking.

As was done in the last rulemaking and consistent with the approach followed for other energy consuming products, DOE will determine an average manufacturer markup by considering the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes clothes dryers. DOE then revises the initial manufacturer markup estimate based on feedback received during manufacturer interviews. DOE will determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 10-K reports filed by publicly traded retailers.

In addition to manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE will include sales tax in its retail price calculations. DOE will use an Internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.

Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the distribution channels described above are still relevant for residential clothes dryers. DOE also welcomes comments concerning its proposed approach to developing estimates of markups for clothes dryers.

The purpose of the energy analysis is to assess the energy-savings potential of different product efficiencies. DOE uses the annual energy consumption and energy-savings potential in the LCC and PBP analyses to establish the savings in consumer operating costs at various product efficiency levels. In contrast to the DOE test procedure, which provides a measure of the energy use, energy efficiency or annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle, the energy use analysis captures a range of operating conditions for clothes dryers in U.S. homes.

For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed distributions of values for several operating conditions, including number of cycles, remaining moisture content (RMC), and load weights that reflect its best estimate of the range of practices found in U.S. homes. 76 FR 22508. DOE also evaluated the indirect impact of a clothes dryer standard on heating and cooling loads in a household. To calculate this impact, DOE first characterized the location of the clothes dryers in a conditioned space based on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), and the 2009 American Housing Survey (AHS). For these installations, DOE utilized the results from a European Union study about the impacts of clothes dryers on home heating and cooling loads to determine the appropriate factor to apply to the total clothes dryer energy use.9

To determine the field energy use of products that would be required to meet amended standard levels, DOE proposes to use data from the EIA's 2009 RECS, or the most recent such survey available from EIA.10 RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS provides sufficient information to establish the type (product class) of clothes dryer used in each household. As a result, DOE will be able to develop household samples for each of the considered product classes.

DOE requests comment or seeks input from stakeholders on the following issues pertaining to the energy use analysis:

Issue F.1 Approaches for specifying the typical annual energy consumption of residential clothes dryers;

Issue F.2 Data sources that DOE can use to characterize the variability in annual energy consumption of clothes dryers.

Issue F.3 Data sources to characterize the indirect impact of dryer energy use on heating and cooling loads of a household.

The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects of potential amended energy conservation standards on consumers of residential clothes dryers by determining how a potential amended standard affects the consumers' operating expenses (usually decreased) and total installed costs (usually increased).

DOE intends to analyze data input variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of households from RECS for the considered product classes using Monte Carlo simulations and probability distributions. The analysis results are a distribution of results showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given efficiency level relative to the baseline level.

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense. The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are the baseline consumer price, standard-level consumer price increases, and installation costs. Baseline consumer prices and standard-level consumer price increases will be determined by applying markups to manufacturer price estimates. The installation cost is added to the consumer price to arrive at a total installed cost.

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE derived the installation costs from RS Means 2008. 76 FR 22513. DOE plans to use similar data sources for this rulemaking, with adjustments to reflect current-day labor and material prices as well as to scale installation cost for higher-efficiency products based on equipment weight and/or dimensions.

Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on whether clothes dryer installation costs scale with equipment weight and/or dimensions.

The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are product energy consumption, product efficiency, electricity prices and forecasts, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates.

Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed in the appliance, whereas maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE derived annualized maintenance and repair frequencies based on Consumer Reports data on repair and maintenance issues for clothes dryers during the first 4 years of ownership. DOE estimated that on average 1.5 percent of electric and 1.75 percent of gas clothes dryers are maintained or repaired each year. Based on RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair 2010 Cost Data,11 DOE also estimated that an average service call and any necessary repair or maintenance takes about 2.5 hours. DOE further estimated that the average material cost is equal to one-half of the equipment cost. The values for cost per service call were then annualized by multiplying by the frequencies and dividing by the average equipment lifetime of 16 years. 76 FR 22514. DOE plans to use similar data sources for this rulemaking.

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE also assumed that repair costs vary in direct proportion with the product price at higher efficiency levels as replacement costs for more-efficient components are likely to be greater than replacement costs for components in baseline products.

Issue G.2 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the approach for estimating repair and maintenance costs for more efficient clothes dryers. DOE also seeks stakeholder comment on the assumption that repair costs vary in direct proportion to product price as well as historical repair cost data as a function of efficiency.

DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels relative to a base case that reflects the market in the absence of amended standards. DOE plans to develop market-share efficiency data (i.e., the distribution of product shipments by efficiency) for the product classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance with any amended or new standards would be required. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from new or amended standards.

Issue G.4 DOE seeks stakeholder input and data on the fraction of clothes dryers sold that exceed the minimum energy efficiency standards. DOE also requests information on expected trends in product efficiency over the next five years.

DOE uses shipment projections by product class and efficiency level in its analysis of the national impacts of potential standards, as well as in the manufacturer impact analysis.

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for clothes dryers driven by historical shipments data. 76 FR 22516. The key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and replacement markets.

Issue H.1 DOE seeks stakeholder input and data showing the distribution of shipments by product class.

In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE modeled the decision to repair or replace equipment for existing owners and the impact that decision would have on the shipments model. DOE estimated how increases in product purchase price and decreases in product operating costs due to standards affect product shipments.12

Issue H.2 DOE seeks input and data on factors that influence a consumer's decisions to repair or replace failed products.

The purpose of the national impact analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. Impacts reported by DOE include the national energy savings (NES) from potential standards and the national net present value (NPV) of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers lifetime impacts of potential standards on clothes dryers shipped in a 30-year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended standards.

To develop the NES, DOE calculates annual energy consumption of clothes dryers in households for the base case and each standards case. To develop the national NPV of consumer benefits from potential standards, DOE calculates national annual energy expenditures and annual product expenditures for the base case and the standards cases. DOE calculates total annual energy expenditures using data on annual energy consumption in each case, forecasted average annual energy prices, and shipment projections. The difference each year between operating cost savings and increased product expenditures is the net savings or net costs.

A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the product energy efficiency forecasted over time for the base case and for each of the standards cases. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE based projections of base-case shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) for the clothes dryer product classes on growth rates determined from historical data provided by AHAM.13 For this rulemaking, DOE plans on considering recent trends in efficiency and input from stakeholders to update product energy efficiency forecasts.

Issue I.1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data for residential clothes dryers by product class and stakeholder input regarding future trends in efficiency.

The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) is to estimate the financial impact of potential energy conservation standards on manufacturers of residential clothes dryers and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on competition, employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model used to estimate a range of potential impacts on manufacturer profitability. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses a proposed standard's potential impacts on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and key issues from the manufacturers' perspective.

As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of potential energy conservation standards on small business manufacturers of covered products. DOE intends to use the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description.14 Manufacturing of residential clothes dryers is classified under NAICS 335224, “Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. This 1,000-employee threshold would include all employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.

DOE intends to conduct a market survey using publicly available information to identify potential small manufacturers using the above-mentioned size threshold. In identifying potential small businesses, DOE generally uses its Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), industry trade association membership directories (including AHAM), individual company Web sites, and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers reports) to create a list of companies that manufacture or sell products covered by this rulemaking.

Issue J.1 DOE requests comment on whether there are any small business manufacturers of residential clothes dryers that it should consider in its analysis.

DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by May 11, 2015, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of new or amended energy conservations standards for residential clothes dryers. After the close of the comment period, DOE will collect data, conduct analyses, and review public comments, as needed. These actions will aid in the development of a NOPR for residential clothes dryers if DOE decides to amend the standards for such products.

DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via email at [email protected].

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0496; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-101-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

On August 31, 2005, we issued AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2005-18-18 requires inspections of certain wire bundles in the left and right engine-to-wing aft fairings for discrepancies; installation of back-to-back p-clamps between the wire and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end of the right-hand strut only; and associated re-routing of the wire bundles, if necessary. AD 2005-18-18 resulted from a report indicating that a circuit breaker for the fuel shutoff valve tripped due to a wire that chafed against the structure in the flammable leakage zone of the aft fairing, causing a short circuit. We issued AD 2005-18-18 to prevent chafing between the wire bundle and the structure of the aft fairing, which could result in electrical arcing and subsequent ignition of flammable vapors and possible uncontrollable fire.

Since we issued AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), we received a report that the service information referenced in AD 2005-18-18 did not adequately address FSV wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engine struts. The proposed installation of tetrafluoroethylene spiral cable wrap on the FSV wires at the aft end of the strut would provide additional wiring protection.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0073 and 757-28A0074, both Revision 2, both dated June 4, 2009. The service information describes procedures for inspecting certain wire bundles in the left and right engine-to-wing aft fairings for discrepancies; installing back-to-back p-clamps between the wire and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end of the right-hand strut only; associated re-routing of the wire bundles, if necessary; and installing spiral cable wrap on FSV wires on the aft ends of the left and right engine struts, and related investigative and corrective actions. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005). This proposed AD would add a requirement to install spiral cable wrap on FSV wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engines, and related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously.

The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 346 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) 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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0248; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-143-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because 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 we receive about this proposed AD.

On April 10, 2013, we issued AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), for all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2013-08-23 requires adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank. AD 2013-08-23 resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We issued AD 2013-08-23 to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Since we issued AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the requirements for the design features and to remove a terminating action for certain inspections. In addition, The Boeing Company has issued new service information, which provides optional alternative methods of compliance for the actions required by AD 2013-08-23.

We reviewed the following service information, which describes procedures for changing the fuel pump control and indication system wiring:

• Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014; and

• Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014.

We have also reviewed Appendixes B, C, and D of Boeing Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014, which include Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALIs), and short-term extensions.

Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014, describes procedures for replacing the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors and changing the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination.

Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014, describes procedures for replacing the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors and changing the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination.

This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

In the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this proposed AD, we have added the text “for the auxiliary fuel tank” to the last sentence to clarify that, for airplanes on which Boeing-installed auxiliary fuel tanks are removed, only the actions specified in this AD for the auxiliary fuel tanks are not required.

In paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD, we have added the text “and each pump that is partially covered by a lowering fuel level” and “main tanks” to the first sentence to clarify the pumps that must have a protective device installed.

Paragraph (h) of AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), specifies, in part, that accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of that AD terminates certain inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002), and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011), for pumps affected by those ADs. However, we have determined that accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2013-08-23 (which is restated in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD) does not terminate those actions and, therefore, we have not retained the terminating action in this proposed AD. The actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD (i.e., a new optional method of compliance in lieu of paragraph (g) of this proposed AD) would extend the compliance times for certain inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05, from 18-month intervals to 24-month intervals. We have added paragraph (j) to this proposed AD to specify that accomplishing the actions in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would extend certain repetitive intervals.

We have determined that it is appropriate to allow additional time to accomplish the design features and requirements specified in this proposed AD. Therefore, we have added a compliance time “as of 48 months after the effective date of this AD” to paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. We have determined that this extension of the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety.

On November 12, 2009, we issued AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009), for all McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2008-06-21 R1 requires revising the maintenance program or the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate inspections and CDCCLs.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), clarify certain requirements, and remove a certain terminating action. This proposed AD would also provide a new optional method of compliance for the actions required by AD 2013-08-23.

This proposed AD specifies to revise certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions and CDCCLs that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 341 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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.

We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) 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.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2014-0132R1, dated June 2, 2014, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model AS 350 B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, D, AS 355 E, F, F1, F2, N, NP, EC 130 B4, and T2 helicopters if equipped with a swashplate assembly with a rotating star, part number (P/N) 350A371003-04, P/N 350A371003-05, P/N 350A371003-06, P/N 350A371003-07, or P/N 350A371003-08. EASA advises that during a repair of a helicopter, it was discovered that rotating swashplates reconditioned in accordance with a certain repair procedure could experience a high stress level. This condition, if not corrected, could affect the service life of the part. To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD No. 2014-0132R1 requires repetitive inspections and replacement of the rotating star.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC130 62A010 for Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters; ASB No. AS355 62.00.33 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and ASB No. AS350 62.00.34 for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, and military version AS350L1 helicopters; all Revision 0 and all dated April 28, 2014.

The ASBs report that a certain repair sheet instruction, which requires reconditioning the rotating swashplate by machining and adding a steel ferrule to accommodate a swashplate bearing, potentially affects the service life limit specified in the airworthiness limitations section. The ASBs provide procedures for inspecting the swashplate assembly's rotating star for a ferrule and if a ferrule exists, inspecting for a crack. The ASBs call for replacing the rotating star before further flight if a crack exists, and before December 31, 2014, if a ferrule is present and there are no cracks. If there is no ferrule, the ASBs require no additional action. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

This proposed AD would require, within 165 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspecting the swashplate assembly to determine whether a ferrule is installed with the rotating star. If no ferrule exists, no further action would be needed. If a ferrule is installed, the proposed AD would require, before further flight, dye-penetrant inspecting the rotating star for a crack. The proposed AD would also require removing the rotating star and all attachment hardware before further flight if the rotating star has a crack, or within 160 hours TIS if the rotating star has a ferrule installed but does not have a crack.

This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a rotating star with a ferrule.

The EASA AD requires reporting inspection findings to Airbus Helicopters. This proposed AD would make no such requirement. The EASA AD does not apply to Airbus Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to those models. The EASA AD applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, and this proposed AD would not because that model is not type certificated in the United States. The EASA AD would require replacing the rotating star, unless already accomplished, by December 31, 2014, while we would require replacing the rotating star within 160 hours TIS, unless already accomplished.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,132 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we would expect the following costs:

• Visually inspecting the swashplate assembly would require 0.25 work-hour for a labor cost of about $21 per inspection. No parts would be needed for a total cost of about $21 per inspection per helicopter, or about $23,772 for the U.S. fleet.

• Dye-penetrant inspecting the rotating star would require 1 work-hour for a labor cost of about $85 per helicopter. No parts would be needed for a total cost of $85 per inspection helicopter and $96,220 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing the rotating star, ferrule, and associated parts would require 16 work hours and parts would cost $8,354, for a total cost of $9,714 per helicopter.

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.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed 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);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

4. 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

FDA is evaluating its current enforcement policies for drug products labeled as homeopathic from scientific, risk, and process perspectives. The Agency is now soliciting opinions about whether and how to adjust the current enforcement policies to reflect changes in the homeopathic product marketplace over the last approximately 25 years.

The definition of a “drug” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) includes: (1) Articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia (USP), official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS); (2) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (3) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. See section 201(g)(1)(A) to (C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(A) to(C)). Accordingly, an article that meets this definition of a “drug” is subject to regulation under the FD&C Act, regardless of whether it is labeled as homeopathic. An article that also meets the definition of a “biological product” (as defined in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C 262(i))) is subject to regulation under both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act.

The FD&C Act recognizes the HPUS, along with the USP, as an official compendium. See section 201(j) of the FD&C Act. The HPUS is produced by a non-governmental organization known as the Homeopathic Pharmacopœia Convention of the United States (HPCUS) and has been in continuous publication since 1897 (Ref. 1). The HPCUS determines which ingredients, including permissible potency levels, are officially monographed homeopathic ingredients. To date, there are over 1200 officially monographed ingredients in the HPUS. Since 2004, the HPCUS has added over 500 new ingredient monographs. The standards set forth in the HPUS and the USP affect the naming, quality, and labeling of drug products. See e.g., sections 501(b) and 502(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(b) and 352(g)).

Nothing in the FD&C Act exempts drugs labeled as homeopathic from any of the requirements related to approval, adulteration, and misbranding, including labeling requirements. If a drug labeled as homeopathic is a new drug under the FD&C Act, it is subject to the same premarket approval requirements and the same standards for safety and efficacy as all new drugs. A new drug is defined, in part, as any drug that is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the condition prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof. See section 201(p) of the FD&C Act).

In 1972, FDA initiated rulemaking procedures (the OTC Drug Review) to determine which OTC drugs are generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and effective and not misbranded under prescribed, recommended, or suggested conditions of use. See “Procedures for Classification of Over-the-Counter Drugs” (37 FR 9464, May 11, 1972). FDA deferred review of drugs labeled as homeopathic due to the uniqueness of homeopathic medicine and stated that FDA would review them as a separate category at a later time (37 FR 9464 at 9466). To date, FDA has not reviewed this class of products for safety and efficacy. Accordingly, there are currently no FDA monographs for drug products labeled as homeopathic.

Since 1988, prescription and nonprescription drug products labeled as homeopathic have been manufactured and distributed without FDA approval under the enforcement policies set forth in FDA's Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400 entitled “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed” (see 53 FR 21728, June 9, 1988). The CPG defines a homeopathic drug as any drug labeled as being homeopathic which is listed in the HPUS, an addendum to it, or its supplements. The CPG includes conditions specific to ingredients, labeling, prescription status, and current good manufacturing practice. The CPG can be found at http://www.fda.gov/iceci/compliancemanuals/compliancepolicyguidancemanual/ucm074360.htm.

The homeopathic drug industry has continued on an upward growth trajectory since FDA issued its CPG in 1988, especially with respect to OTC drug products labeled as homeopathic. The CPG noted that, at the time of original publication in 1988, the homeopathic drug market was a multimillion dollar industry in the United States. In 2007, the National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, estimated that adults spent about $2.9 billion on the purchase of homeopathic medicine (Ref. 2). Many drugs labeled as homeopathic are sold OTC in major retail stores and are often marketed as natural, safe, and effective alternatives to other prescription and nonprescription products.

Drugs products labeled as homeopathic can contain a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals, and chemicals (either as active or inactive ingredients). As with ingredients in other drug and biological products, homeopathic ingredients, even if highly diluted, can cause side effects, drug interactions, and allergic or other adverse reactions. Negative health effects from drug products labeled as homeopathic have been reported through the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System and the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which is maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers and tracks human poison exposure cases. Data in the NPDS pertaining to homeopathic drug products is tracked under the category “Homeopathic Agents.” The 2012 American Association of Poison Control Center Annual Report indicated that there were 10,311 reported poison exposure cases related to “Homeopathic Agents,” with 8,788 of those reported cases attributed to children 5 years of age and younger (Ref. 3). Of the 10,311 reported cases, 697 required treatment in a health care facility (Id.).

FDA is seeking broad public input on the current enforcement policies related to drug products labeled as homeopathic in an effort to better promote and protect the public health. FDA has developed a list of questions to facilitate a more productive discussion at the public hearing. This list is not intended to be exclusive, and FDA encourages comments on other matters related to the development and regulation of drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic. Issues that are of specific interest to the Agency include the following:

• What are consumer and health care provider attitudes towards human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic?

• What data sources can be identified or shared with FDA so that the Agency can better assess the risks and benefits of drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic?

• Are the current enforcement policies under the CPG appropriate to protect and promote public health in light of the tremendous growth in the homeopathic drug market? Are there alternatives to the current enforcement policies of the CPG that would inform FDA's regulatory oversight of drugs labeled as homeopathic? If so, please explain.

• Are there areas of the current CPG that could benefit from additional clarity? If so, please explain.

• Is there information regarding the regulation of homeopathic products in other countries that could inform FDA's thinking in this area?

• A large majority of human drug products labeled as homeopathic are marketed as OTC drugs. These products are available for a wide variety of indications, and many of these indications have never been considered for OTC use under a formal regulatory process. What would be an appropriate regulatory process for evaluating such indications for OTC use?

• Given the wide range of indications on drug products labeled as homeopathic and available OTC, what processes do companies currently use to evaluate whether such products, including their indications for use, are appropriate for marketing as an OTC drug?

• Do consumers and health care providers have adequate information to make informed decisions about drug products labeled as homeopathic? If not, what information, including, for example, information in labeling, would allow consumers and health care providers to be better informed about products labeled as homeopathic?

The public hearing is free and seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. If you wish to make an oral presentation during the hearing, you must register by submitting either an electronic or a written request by 5 p.m. on April 13, 2015, to Lesley DeRenzo or Cynthia Ng (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Submit electronic requests to [email protected]. You must provide your name, title, business affiliation (if applicable), address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and type of organization you represent (e.g., industry, consumer organization, etc.). You also should submit a brief summary of the presentation, including the discussion topic(s) that will be addressed and the approximate time requested for your presentation. FDA encourages individuals and organizations with common interests to coordinate and give a joint, consolidated presentation. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted to attend the meeting. FDA may limit both the number of participants from individual organizations and the total number of attendees based on space limitations. Registered presenters should check in before the hearing.

Participants should submit a copy of each presentation to Lesley DeRenzo or Cynthia Ng (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than 5 p.m. on April 13, 2015. We will file the hearing schedule, indicating the order and time allotted for each presenter, with the Division of Dockets Management (see COMMENTS AND TRANSCRIPTS). FDA will post an agenda of the public hearing and other background material at least 3 days before the public hearing, along with additional information, at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm132703.htm (select this hearing from the events list).

We will mail, email, or telephone the schedule to each participant before the hearing. In anticipation of the hearing presentations moving ahead of schedule, participants are encouraged to arrive early to ensure their designated order of presentation. Participants who are not present when called risk forfeiting their scheduled time.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, contact Lesley DeRenzo or Cynthia Ng (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the hearing.

The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with part 15 (21 CFR part 15). A presiding officer, who will be accompanied by FDA senior management from the Office of the Commissioner and the relevant centers, will conduct the hearing.

Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is informal and the rules of evidence do not apply. Only the presiding officer and panel members may question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation (§ 15.30(e)). Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (21 CFR part 10, subpart C) (§ 10.203(a)). Under § 10.205, representatives of the electronic media may be permitted, subject to certain limitations, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public administrative proceedings, including presentations by participants. The hearing will be transcribed as stipulated in § 15.30(b). To the extent that the conditions for the hearing as described in this document conflict with any provisions set out in part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of those provisions as specified in § 15.30(h).

The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified all the Web site addresses in this reference section, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

This proposal addresses the following local rules: PCAPCD Rule 249 and VCAPCD Rule 74.31. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

Table of Contents I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take? II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions? III. What are the criteria for redesignation? IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? V. What is EPA's analysis of the request? VI. What is the effect of January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit decision regarding PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4? VII. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area? VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area? IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area X. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions? XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

In this action, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 1 and to take additional actions related to Tennessee's request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, which is summarized as follows and described in greater detail throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA proposes: (1) To redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) to approve, under section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), Tennessee's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area into the Tennessee SIP.

First, EPA proposes to determine that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Hamilton County in Tennessee, located within the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Second, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025. The maintenance plan that EPA is proposing to approve today includes on-road MVEBs for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is proposing to approve the 2025 MVEBs into the Tennessee SIP that are included as part of Tennessee's maintenance plan for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Further, EPA proposes to make the determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The bases for EPA's determination for the Area are discussed in greater detail below. EPA is also providing the public an update of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the 2025 MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Please see Section VIII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details.

Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's November 13, 2014, SIP revision, which requests redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and addresses the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In separate actions, EPA approved the redesignation requests and associated maintenance plans for the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Area. See 79 FR 76235 (December 22, 2014) and 79 FR 75748 (December 19, 2014), respectively.

Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere. The main precursors of secondary PM2.5 are sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). Sulfates are a type of secondary particle formed from SO2 emissions of power plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary particle, are formed from NOX emissions of power plants, automobiles, and other combustion sources.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annualmean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, EPA retained the annual average NAAQS at 15 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.2 See 71 FR 61144. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the primary and secondary 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period.

On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated Hamilton County in Tennessee, in association with counties in Alabama and Georgia in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated designations for the 24-hour standard established in 2006, designating counties in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688. That action also clarified that Hamilton County in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area was classified unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not promulgate designations for the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS because that NAAQS was essentially identical to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, Hamilton County in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is designated nonattainment for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, and today's action only addresses this designation.

All 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas were designated under subpart 1 of title I, part D, of the CAA. Subpart 1 contains the general requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I, part D. On April 25, 2007, EPA promulgated its PM2.5 Implementation Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 72 FR 20664. This rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the regulatory results of attaining the NAAQS, as discussed below. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule and the final rule entitled “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule”) to EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I. The effect of the court's ruling on this proposed redesignation action is discussed in detail in Section VI of this document.

The 3-year ambient air quality data for 2007-2009 indicated no violations of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. As a result, on November 13, 2014, Tennessee requested redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007-2009, indicating that the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS had been achieved for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area's design value, based on data from 2007 through 2009, is below 15.0 μg/m3, which demonstrates attainment of the standard. While Annual PM2.5 concentrations are dependent on a variety of conditions, the overall improvement in annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area can be attributed to the reduction of pollutant emissions, as discussed in more detail in Section V of this proposed rulemaking.

The D.C. Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have issued a number of decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading programs for transported air pollution, CAIR and CSAPR, that impact this proposed redesignation action. The effect of those court actions on this rulemaking is discussed in detail in Section V of this document.

The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070)) and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);

2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and

3. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

On November 13, 2014, TDEC requested the redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Chattanooga TN-GA Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA's preliminary evaluation indicates that the Tennessee portion of this Area has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also announcing the status of its adequacy determination for both the NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Additionally, EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs for both NOX and direct PM2.5 that were included in Tennessee's maintenance plan.

As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in today's action to: (1) Redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) approve into the Tennessee SIP the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Further, EPA proposes to make the determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). EPA is proposing to determine that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS since the May 31, 2011, attainment determination. See 76 FR 31239. For PM2.5, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS if it meets the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and appendix N of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, must be less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period. The relevant data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area was attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 31239. For that action, EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from monitoring stations in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007-2009. These data had been quality-assured by the respective state agencies and are recorded in AQS. In addition, on September 8, 2011, at 76 FR 55774, EPA finalized a determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. As summarized in Table 1, below, the 3-year averages of annual arithmetic mean concentrations (i.e., design values) for the years 2009 through 2013 for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area are below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest 3-year average of annual mean concentrations recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the 3-year design value for the period on which Tennessee based its redesignation request (2007-2009) for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is 12.9 μg/m3, which is below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Additional details can be found in EPA's final clean data determination for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. See 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011). EPA has reviewed more recent data which indicate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year attainment period of 2007-2009. If the Area does not continue to attain before EPA finalizes the redesignation, EPA will not go forward with the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below, TDEC has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that the Tennessee SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to 1997 Annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

General SIP requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques; provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

On August 2, 2012, EPA approved all infrastructure SIP elements required under section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the exception of the visibility element under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as “prong 4”). See 77 FR 45958. EPA approved prong 4 for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on May 7, 2014. See 79 FR 26143. These requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Area. As stated above, EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, EPA believes it has approved all SIP elements under section 110 that must be approved as a prerequisite for the redesignation to attainment of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. EPA proposes to determine that the Tennessee SIP meets the applicable SIP requirements for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS were designated under subpart 1 of the CAA. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in section 176. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). Section VI of this proposed rulemaking notice discusses the relationship between this proposed redesignation action and subpart 4 of Part D.

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other requirements.

EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning requirements “have no meaning” for an area that has already attained the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to PM2.5 in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for reasonable further progress (RFP), RACM, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).3 Courts have upheld EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1)'s “reasonably available” control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional measures where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).

Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until redesignation. The section 172(c)(2) requirement that nonattainment plans contain provisions promoting reasonable further progress toward attainment is also not relevant for purposes of redesignation because EPA has determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, because the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to a RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. On February 8, 2012, EPA approved Tennessee's 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as part of the SIP revision submitted by TDEC to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 77 FR 6467.

Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Tennessee has demonstrated that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area will be able to maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore Tennessee need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of the redesignation request. Tennessee's PSD program will become effective in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area upon redesignation to attainment.

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the Tennessee SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.

176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.

EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements 4 as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); See 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Tennessee has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area (e.g., 77 FR 45958, August 2, 2012).

As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA believes that Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and Federal measures.

Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, refers to airborne particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Although treated as a single pollutant, fine particles come from many different sources and are composed of many different compounds. In the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, one of the largest components of PM2.5 is sulfate, which is formed through various chemical reactions from the precursor SO2. The other major component of PM2.5 is organic carbon, which originates predominantly from biogenic emission sources. Nitrate, which is formed from the precursor NOX, is also a component of PM2.5. Crustal materials from windblown dust and elemental carbon from combustion sources are less significant contributors to total PM2.5. VOCs, also precursors for PM, are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products, and other industrial sources. VOCs also are emitted by natural sources such as vegetation.

Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions in particulate matter and its precursors. Most of these emission reductions are enforceable through regulations. The Federal measures that have been implemented include:

Tier 2 vehicle standards and low-sulfur gasoline. In addition to requiring NOX controls, the Tier 2 rule reduced the allowable sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per million (ppm) starting in January of 2006. Most gasoline sold prior to this had a sulfur content of approximately 300 ppm.

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards & Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel Rule. On October 6, 2000, the U.S. EPA promulgated a rule to reduce NOX and VOC emissions from heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicles that began to take effect in 2004. See 65 FR 59896. A second phase of standards and testing procedures began in 2007 to reduce particulate matter from heavy-duty highway engines, and reduce highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm since the sulfur in fuel damages high efficiency catalytic exhaust emission control devices. The total program should achieve a 90 percent reduction in PM emissions and a 95 percent reduction in NOX emission for new engines using low-sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher-content sulfur diesel.

Non-road, large spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards. The non-road spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from groups of previously unregulated non-road engines. These engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines sold in the United States and imported after the effective date of these standards.

When all of the non-road spark-ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These controls will help reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.

Large non-road diesel engine standards. Promulgated in 2004, this rule was phased in between 2008 and 2014. This rule will reduce sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel and, when fully implemented, will reduce NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions by over 90 percent from these engines.

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine standard. Initially promulgated in 2010, this rule regulates emissions of air toxics from existing diesel powered stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines that meet specific site rating, age, and size criteria. With all of the reciprocating internal combustion engine standards fully implemented in 2013, EPA estimates that PM2.5 emissions from these engines have been reduced by approximately 2,800 tons per year (tpy).

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine standard. Promulgated in 2010, this rule establishes more stringent exhaust emission standards for new large marine diesel engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (commonly referred to as Category 3 compression-ignition marine engines) as part of a coordinated strategy to address emissions from all ships that affect U.S. air quality. Near-term standards for newly built engines applied beginning in 2011, and long-term standards requiring an 80 percent reduction in NOX emissions will begin in 2016.

NO X SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable.

CAIR and CSAPR. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was promulgated in 2005 and required 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia to significantly reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric generating units (EGUs) in order to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). In 2008, the D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011, acting on the Court's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address interstate transport of emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace CAIR (76 FR 48208).5 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the Eastern United States. Implementation of the rule was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs would have superseded the CAIR cap-and-trade programs. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to the Agency and once again ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit subsequently denied EPA's petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision regarding CSAPR and remanded that decision to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA filed a motion to lift the stay in light of the Supreme Court decision, and on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302, Document No. 1518738. EPA subsequently issued an interim final rule amending the Code of Federal Regulations to correctly reflect the compliance deadlines for CSAPR as revised by the effect of the Court's order granting EPA's motion to lift the stay of CSAPR and delay its deadlines by three years. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014). These amendments make clear that, consistent with the Court's order, compliance with CSAPR's Phase 1 emissions budgets is now required in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013) and compliance with the rule's Phase 2 emissions budgets and assurance provisions is now required in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond).

EPA approved a modification to Tennessee's SIP on November 25, 2009, that addressed the requirements of CAIR for the purpose of reducing SO2 and NOX emissions (see 74 FR 61535), and Tennessee's SIP redesignation request lists CAIR/CSAPR as a control measure. CAIR was in place and getting emission reductions when the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area began monitoring attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The quality-assured, certified monitoring data used to demonstrate the area's attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 5, 2010, attainment deadline was also impacted by CAIR. However, EPA conducted an air quality modeling analysis as part of the CSAPR rulemaking which demonstrates that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area would be able to maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the absence of either CAIR or CSAPR. See “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,” App. B-40 and B-59.6 This modeling is available in the docket for this proposed redesignation action. In addition, as noted above, the D.C. Circuit has lifted the stay of CSAPR and EPA has made ministerial amendments to CSAPR consistent with the Court's order. Therefore, to the extent that these transport rules impact attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, any emission reductions associated with CAIR that helped the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area achieve attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS are permanent and enforceable for purposes of redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA because CSAPR requires similar or greater emission reductions from relevant upwind areas starting in 2015 and beyond.

For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA believes that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, TDEC must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future 1997 Annual PM2.5 violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed below, EPA proposes to find that TDEC's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Tennessee SIP.

The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2007-2009. TDEC has selected 2007 as the attainment emission inventory year. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. TDEC began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. As noted above, the year 2007 was chosen as the base year for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors SO2 and NOX. Emissions projections to support maintenance through 2025 have been prepared for the years 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The projected inventory included with the maintenance plan estimates emissions forward to 2025, which satisfies the 10-year interval required in section 175(A) of the CAA.

The emissions inventories are composed of four major types of sources: point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The projected annual emissions from point and area sources were determined by applying Economic Growth Analysis System version 5.0 for Hamilton County to respective attainment year emissions. The projected annual emissions from onroad mobile sources within Hamilton County for 2025 were determined by using the MOVES2010b model. Projected annual emissions from nonroad mobile sources within Hamilton County were determined by using the NONROAD2008a model. The 2007 SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as well as the emissions for other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 2 through 6 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance demonstration.

The November 13, 2014, final submittal includes a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. This demonstration:

(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the Annual PM2.5 standard by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 will remain below 2007 emission levels.

(ii) Uses 2007 as the attainment year and includes future emission inventory projections for 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025.

(iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after EPA review and potential approval of the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs were established for the last year (2025) of the maintenance plan.

(iv) Provides, as shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 below, the actual and projected emissions inventories, in tpy, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

Table 2 shows a slight increase of NOX, and PM2.5 from point sources, and Table 3 indicates a slight increase of NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 from nonpoint emission sources. Table 6 reflects the overall emissions from all source categories in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL. Overall emissions from all source categories combined for all three pollutants, NOX, SO2, and PM2.5, are projected to decrease from 2007 to 2025. In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. As explained below, EPA proposes to find that the overall emission projections illustrate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is expected to continue to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.7 Emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are projected to decline by 6.4 percent, 41.3 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively, from 2007 to 2025.

A maintenance plan requires the state to show that projected future year overall emissions will not exceed the level of emissions which led the Area to attain the NAAQS. For the reasons discussed above, EPA preliminarily agrees that Tennessee's projected emissions demonstrate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area will continue to attain for the duration of the maintenance plan.

There are currently three monitors measuring ambient PM2.5 in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. TDEC has committed to continue operation of the monitors in the Tennessee portion of Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and have thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA approved Tennessee's 2013 monitoring plan on November 14, 2013. In addition, there is currently one monitor measuring ambient PM2.5 in the Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) has committed to continue operation of the monitor in the Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and has thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. On December 19, 2014, EPA approved GA EPD's submittal to redesignate the Georgia portion of Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 75748. There is no monitor in the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

TDEC has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future PM2.5 attainment problems.

TDEC will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of triennial emission inventories for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as required in the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). For these periodic inventories, TDEC will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed substantially, then TDEC will re-project emissions for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d). TDEC has identified the following possible means for providing further reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and/or its significant precursors as contingency measures for emission sources within Hamilton County:

• Reasonably available control technology (RACT) for point sources of PM2.5 emissions not already covered by RACT, best available control technology, or reasonable and proper emission limitations;

• RACM for area sources of PM2.5 emissions;

• RACT for major point-sources of NOX emissions;

• RACT for minor point-sources of NOX emissions;

• RACM for area sources of NOX emissions;

• RACT for major point-sources of SO2 emissions;

• RACT for minor point-sources of SO2 emissions;

• RACM for area sources of SO2 emissions; and

• Additional PM2.5, NOX, and/or SO2 emissions reduction measures yet to be identified.

The contingency plan included in the submittal includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. TDEC will use actual ambient monitoring data to determine whether a trigger event has occurred and when contingency measures should be implemented.

An exceedance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 µg/m3 at any federal reference method (FRM) monitor in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance area, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data averaged over three consecutive calendar years, will trigger a comprehensive evaluation by TDEC to determine if contingency measures should be implemented. Furthermore, such an evaluation will also be triggered by the occurrence of any of the following conditions that may forewarn of a potential exceedance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

• An annual mean PM2.5 concentration (average of quarterly-average concentrations) of greater than or equal to 16.5 µg/m3 for the previous calendar year at any FRM monitor in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance area, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data;

• An annual mean PM2.5 (average of quarterly-average concentrations) of greater than or equal to 15.5 µg/m3 for each of the previous two consecutive calendar years at any FRM monitor in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance area, based on the quality-assured and certified monitoring data;

• Total emissions of PM2.5 in the most recent NEI for Hamilton County of greater than 2,059 tons, which is thirty percent more than the corresponding emissions for 2007, the attainment year; and

• Total emissions of SO2 in the most recent NEI for Hamilton County of greater than 1,870 tons, which is thirty percent more than the corresponding emissions for 2007.

Upon occurrence of a contingency measure trigger, the required comprehensive evaluation will be conducted to determine the cause(s) of the elevated ambient PM2.5 concentrations or emissions inventory increase, to determine if an exceedance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS is likely to occur or continue, and to determine whether or not the adoption and implementation of appropriate contingency measures is required for the further reduction of emissions of PM2.5 and/or its significant precursors within Hamilton County. The evaluation will examine:

• Severity of the trigger condition;

• Potentially contributing emissions from sources within Hamilton County;

• Potentially contributing emissions resulting from regional or long-range transport;

• Potentially contributing meteorological conditions, if applicable;

• Emission trends for all source types;

• Future emissions reductions from any adopted or planned regulations or initiatives;

• Current and recently identified emissions control technologies applicable to considered contingency measures;

• Emissions reduction potential of considered contingency measures;

• Technical and economic feasibility of considered contingency measures;

• Possible geographic limitations of considered contingency measures; and

• Implementation timeline of considered contingency measures.

EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components required: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by TDEC for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

As discussed in Section I of this action, the D.C. Circuit remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428. The court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title I.

In this portion of the proposed redesignation, EPA addresses the effect of the Court's January 4, 2013, ruling on the proposed redesignation. As explained below, EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013, decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decision, redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area redesignation request and disregards the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule remanded by the Court, the State's request for redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes into account the effect of the Court's ruling on the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered.

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the Court's January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of subpart 1 and remanded that matter to EPA to address implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of evaluating Tennessee's redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that those requirements are not “applicable” for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are “applicable” and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for the plan and Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of “applicable” under the statute is “whatever should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in already implemented or due at the time of attainment”).8 In this case, at the time that Tennessee submitted its redesignation request on November 13, 2014, requirements under subpart 4 were not due.

EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the State submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1 and held that EPA was required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA that “applicable requirements,” for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be “applicable” for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).

EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be redesignated, a state must meet “all requirements `applicable' to the area under section 110 and part D.” Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the EPA must have fully approved the “applicable” SIP for the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support EPA's interpretation of “applicable” as only those requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request. First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 107(d)(3)(D). If “applicable requirements” were interpreted to be a continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.

Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP requirements coming due after the state submits its complete redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.

Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013, decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations, subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the State submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of redesignating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area to attainment.

With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10 9 nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas.10 In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent “subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10 requirements.” See 57 FR 13538. The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.

For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, EPA is considering the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to be a “moderate” PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation of law as “moderate” nonattainment areas and would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a “serious” nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).

The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.11 In any event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the area can maintain the standard with a PSD program after redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under subpart 4,12 when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning requirements for these subparts. As discussed above, for redesignations, EPA has for many years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining the standard.

Therefore, even if we were to consider the Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively 13 and thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard for the purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to attainment.

Elsewhere in this document, EPA proposes to determine that the Area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4.

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section 189(a)(1)(C), and a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request.

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section 189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such precursors “do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.”

EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was “not required to address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the State for control measures.” EPA intended these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures in various regions of the country in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for such regulation of VOC and ammonia in specific areas where that was necessary.

The Court in its January 4, 2013, decision made reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated that, “In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly governs precursor presumptions.” NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.

Elsewhere in the Court's opinion, however, the Court observed: Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. Id. at 21, n.7.

For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is consistent with the Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing section 189(e), stated that “for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' ” the Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to determine whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation request.

However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time that the state submitted the redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the area for the PM2.5 standard. The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained the standard without any specific additional controls of VOC and ammonia emissions from any sources in the Area.

Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of PM10 precursors.14 Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, EPA must address here whether additional controls of ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained below, EPA does not believe that any additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.

In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). With regard to precursor regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking proposes to determine that even if not explicitly addressed by the State in its submission, the State does not need to take further action with respect to ammonia and VOCs as precursors to satisfy the requirements of section 189(e). This proposed determination is based on our findings that: (1) The Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area contains no major stationary sources of ammonia, and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC are adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.15 In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the Area, which is attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. See 57 FR 13539.

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but rather the rule assesses SIP plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the standard. Thus, even if EPA regards the Court's January 4, 2013, decision as calling for “presumptive regulation” of ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring the State to address precursors differently than they have already would result in a substantively different outcome.

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4 requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control purposes.16 Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for PM10.17 EPA believes that application of this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable. Because the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has already attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's approval here of Tennessee's request for redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. In the context of a redesignation, Tennessee has shown that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained the standard. Moreover, the State has shown, and EPA has proposed to determine, that attainment in this Area is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically that no further control of additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013, decision of the court as precluding redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In sum, even if Tennessee were required to address precursors for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, EPA would still conclude that the Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).

With regard to the redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, in evaluating the effect of the Court's remand of EPA's implementation rule, which included presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal is also considering the impact of the decision on the maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA notes that the Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that the State has shown that attainment of that standard is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.

EPA proposes to determine that the State's maintenance plan shows continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. EPA therefore believes that the only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results from the Court's January 4, 2013, decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As explained below, based upon documentation provided by Tennessee and supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area need not include any additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the standard.

First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC emission levels in this area have historically been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second, total ammonia emissions throughout the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area are low, estimated to be approximately 370.9 tpy for 2007. See Table 7 below. As described below, available information shows that no precursor, including VOC and ammonia, is expected to increase significantly over the maintenance period so as to interfere with or undermine the State's maintenance demonstration.

Tennessee's maintenance plan shows that emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are projected to decrease over the maintenance period in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area by 91.9 tpy, 7,890.4 tpy and 116.5 tpy, respectively. See Table 6 above. In addition, emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC emissions are projected to decrease by 4,401.2 tpy and that ammonia emissions are projected to decrease by 60.8 tpy between 2007 and 2020. While the RIA emissions inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no reason to believe that this overall downward trend would not continue through 2025. Given that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is already attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of emissions from sources in the Area, the overall downward trend of emissions inventories is consistent with continued attainment. Even if VOC and ammonia emissions were to increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, the overall emission reductions projected in SO2 and NOX would be sufficient to offset any increases. For these reasons, EPA believes that local emissions of all the potential PM2.5 precursors will not increase to the extent that they might cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period.

In addition, available air quality data and modeling analyses show continued maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. As noted in section V, above, the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area recorded a PM2.5 design value of 10.5 μg/m3 during 2011-2013, the most recent three years available with complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data. This is well below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. Moreover, the modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is expected to continue to decline through 2020. Given the decrease in overall precursor emissions projected through 2025, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will also continue to decrease through 2025.

Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area should be redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of VOC and ammonia potentially relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit's January 4, 2013, decision, and for the reasons set forth in this document, EPA continues to propose approval of the State's maintenance plan and its request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEBs is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEBs serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEBs concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule. See 58 FR 62188. The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs.

After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, Tennessee has elected to develop MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 for the entire nonattainment area. Tennessee has developed these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of its maintenance plan, 2025. The MVEBs reflect the total on-road emissions for 2025, plus an allocation from the available NOX and PM2.5 safety margin. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below the attainment level. The NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs and allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled and new emission factor models. The NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area are defined in Table 8 below.