[ + Watch Now + ]

Mobile Security Industry News

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

[April 16, 2012]

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

Apr 16, 2012 (Environmental Protection Agency Documents and Publications/ContentWorks via COMTEX) -- SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an "infrastructure" SIP. TDEC certified that the Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter referred to as "infrastructure submission"). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submission because the current Tennessee SIP does not include provisions to comply with the requirements of this sub-element. With the exception of sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.


EFFECTIVE DATE: Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.

3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

4. Mail: "EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353," Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) "infrastructure" provisions? V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed and many states did not provide the required "infrastructure" SIP submission for these newly promulgated NAAQS.

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related to the "infrastructure" requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA received an extension of the date to complete this Federal Register notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to make the findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008. In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as of January 7, 2008.

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled, "Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans; 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS," making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. For those states that did receive findings, such as Tennessee, the findings of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA approved, the required SIPs. However, the findings of failure to submit did not impose sanctions or set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in section 179 of the CAA, because these findings do not pertain to the elements contained in the Title I part D plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the findings of failure to submit for the infrastructure submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Tennessee's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on December 14, 2007, and was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008, for all elements with the exception of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Tennessee was among other states that received a finding of failure to submit because its infrastructure submission was not complete for elements (C) and (J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. Tennessee has since met the completeness requirements for 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) and these infrastructure elements were federally approved on March 14, 2012. See 77 FR 14976.

Today's action is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's infrastructure submission for which EPA made the completeness determination on March 27, 2008. This action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Tennessee's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? --This is a summary of a Federal Register article originally published on the page number listed below-- Proposed rule.

CFR Part: "40 CFR Part 52" Citation: "77 FR 22533" Document Number: "EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353; FRL-9659-2" Federal Register Page Number: "22533" "Proposed Rules"

[ Back To Mobile Security Homepage's Homepage ]

Follow Us

  • Mobile Security - LinkedIn
  • Mobile Security - Youtube
  • Mobile Security - Facebook
  • Mobile Security - Twitter
  • Mobile Security - RSS Feed

Request a Demo

Weekly Demonstration: SAP Mobile Secure
Solution including SAP Afaria Cloud

Free 30-day Trial

Best MDM in the cloud. Best MDM
Analytics. Best MDM price.

Featured Whitepapers

What Is Your Mobile Content Policy? A Checklist for Content Risk Mitigation
We are living in a world that only 20 years ago was the realm of science fiction. Devices once just barely imaginable have become common consumer items, carried casually in pockets and purses, with constantly growing capabilities.

SAP Enterprise Mobility: Bringing a Cohesive Approach to a Complex Market
Mobility and consumerization are creating complexity in the enterprise, but embracing the change can lead to more productive mobile workers as well as better communications with employees, partners, customers, and consumers. The trends in the enterprise mobility landscape drive a need for technology solutions to emerge.

Featured Datasheets

Securing Enterprise Mobility for Greater Competitive Advantage
We are living in a world that only 20 years ago was the realm of science fiction. Devices once just barely imaginable have become common consumer items, carried casually in pockets and purses, with constantly growing capabilities.

Secure Mobile Content Management for the Enterprise
Every day employees move business files onto their mobile devices so they can work at home, on the road, or at client sites. The mobile workforce is a reality, as 80% of employees say they need to access work documents from outside the office.1 Instead of insecure, consumer-based tools, enterprises need a safe, reliable platform for managing content on mobile devices.

Featured Webinar

Mobile Security - Mobile Drives Field Service Productivity at Satellites Unlimited

Mobile Drives Field Service Productivity at Satellites Unlimited
Field service has never been more competitive or faster changing than it is today. Going mobile is a must to stay ahead of the competition, provide improved services, and keep up with ever-increasing customer expectations.

Featured Webcast

Mobile Security - End to End Mobility Requirements: IDC and SAP explore the 3rd Platform

End to End Mobility Requirements: IDC and SAP explore the 3rd Platform
A new IDC study states that we're in the midst of a shift that takes place once every 20 - 25 years - introducing a new technology platform that will inspire growth and innovation for enterprises of all sizes. IDC calls it the 3rd Platform - built on mobile devices and apps, cloud services, mobile broadband networks, "Big Data", analytics, and social technologies.

Featured On-Demand Webinar

Mobile Security - Analyst Webcast: Secure Content Management in a Mobile Age

Analyst Webcast: Secure Content Management in a Mobile Age
Securing and managing content is taking on new importance as organizations try to cope with the explosion of business-oriented file sharing services while at the same time taking advantage of the proliferation of "smart" mobile devices.

Featured Infographics

Featured Press Releases