34302 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, submittal also 

contains changes to Tennessee Chapter 1200–03– 

26—Administrative Fees Schedule provisions. EPA 

is not proposing action on this part of the submittal 

as these provisions are not part of the federallyapproved Tennessee SIP. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0080; FRL–9684–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review; Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

approve changes to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 

through the Division of Air Pollution 

Control to EPA on July 29, 2011. The 

July 29, 2011, SIP revision modifies 

Tennessee’s New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) programs. Tennessee’s 

July 29, 2011, SIP revision proposes to 

incorporate, into the Tennessee SIP, 

NSR provisions for fine particulate 

matter (also known as PM2.5) as 

amended in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’). EPA is 

proposing approval of the July 29, 2011, 

SIP revision because the Agency has 

preliminarily determined that the 

revision is consistent with the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations 

regarding NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0080 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0080, 

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: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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–2012– 

0080.’’ 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: For 

information regarding the Tennessee 

SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

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. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR, contact Ms. 

Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at 

the same address above. Ms. Adams’ 

telephone number is (404) 562–9241; 

email address: adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

For information regarding the PM2.5

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS), contact Mr. Joel Huey, 

Regulatory Development Section, at the 

same address above. Mr. Huey’s 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104; 

email address: huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Tennessee’s SIP 

revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On July 29, 2011, TDEC submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA for approval into 

the Tennessee SIP to adopt rules 

equivalent to federal requirements for 

NSR permitting.1 Tennessee’s July 29, 

2011, SIP revision includes changes to 

Tennessee’s Air Quality Regulations, 

Chapter 1200–03–09—Construction and 

Operating Permits, Rule Number .01— 

Construction Permits, to adopt PSD and 

NNSR requirements related to the 

implementation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

The rule changes adopted required 

federal PSD and NNSR permitting 

provisions governing the 

implementation of the NSR program for 

the PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule. Also, Tennessee’s July 

29, 2011, SIP revision includes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34303 

clarifying changes to rule 1200–03–09— 

.01. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

changes into the Tennessee SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is not taking action 

to approve a portion of Tennessee’s July 

29, 2011, SIP revision regarding the 

applicability of the term ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions’’ when accounting for 

condensable particles in applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations in PSD permits. 

More details are provided in Sections II 

and III below. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Today’s proposed action to revise the 

Tennessee SIP relates to EPA’s 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review Program for Particulate Matter 

Less than 2.5 Micrometers,’’ Final Rule, 

73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (the ‘‘NSR 

PM2.5 Rule’’). In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

EPA finalized regulations to implement 

the NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As a result of EPA’s final NSR PM2.5

Rule, states were required to provide 

SIP submissions no later than May 16, 

2011, to address these requirements for 

both the PSD and NNSR programs. 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision 

addresses the PSD and NNSR 

requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

More detail on the NSR PM2.5 Rule can 

be found in EPA’s May 16, 2008, final 

rule and is summarized below. 

A. Fine Particulate Matter and the 

NAAQS 

Fine particles in the atmosphere are 

made up of a complex mixture of 

components. Common constituents 

include sulfate; nitrate; ammonium; 

elemental carbon; a great variety of 

organic compounds; and inorganic 

material (including metals, dust, sea 

salt, and other trace elements) generally 

referred to as ‘‘crustal’’ material, 

although it may contain material from 

other sources. Airborne particulate 

matter (PM) with a nominal 

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 

micrometers or less (a micrometer is 

one-millionth of a meter, and 2.5 

micrometers is less than one-seventh the 

average width of a human hair) are 

considered to be ‘‘fine particles’’ and are 

also known as PM2.5. ‘‘Primary’’ 

particles are emitted directly into the air 

as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., 

elemental carbon from diesel engines or 

fire activities, or condensable organic 

particles from gasoline engines). 

‘‘Secondary’’ particles (e.g., sulfate and 

nitrate) form in the atmosphere as a 

result of various chemical reactions. 

The health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 include potential 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease (i.e., lung 

disease, decreased lung function asthma 

attacks and certain cardiovascular 

issues). Epidemiological studies have 

indicated a correlation between elevated 

PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. 

Groups considered especially sensitive 

to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, 

children, and individuals with heart 

and lung diseases. For more details 

regarding health effects and PM2.5 see 

EPA’s Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/particlepollution/ (See heading 

‘‘Health and Welfare’’). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

NAAQS for PM to add new standards 

for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the 

indicator. Previously, EPA used PM10

(inhalable particles smaller than or 

equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as 

the indicator for the PM NAAQS. EPA 

established health-based (primary) 

annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5, 

setting an annual standard at a level of 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) and a 24-hour standard at a level of 

65 mg/m3. See 62 FR 38652. At the time 

the 1997 primary standards were 

established, EPA also established 

welfare-based (secondary) standards 

identical to the primary standards. The 

secondary standards are designed to 

protect against major environmental 

effects of PM2.5, such as visibility 

impairment, soiling, and materials 

damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA 

revised the primary and secondary 24- 

hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 mg/m3 and 

retained the existing annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15.0 mg/m3. See 71 FR 61236. 

B. What is the NSR program? 

The CAA NSR program is a 

preconstruction review and permitting 

program applicable to certain new and 

modified stationary sources of air 

pollutants regulated under the CAA. 

The program includes a combination of 

air quality planning and air pollution 

control technology requirements. The 

CAA NSR program is composed of three 

separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and 

Minor NSR. PSD is established in part 

C of title I of the CAA and applies in 

areas that meet the NAAQS— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas 

where there is insufficient information 

to determine if the area meets the 

NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D 

of title I of the CAA and applies in areas 

that are not in attainment of the 

NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The 

Minor NSR program addresses 

construction or modification activities 

that do not qualify as ‘‘major’’ and 

applies regardless of the designation of 

the area in which a source is located. 

Together, these programs are referred to 

as NSR programs. EPA regulations 

governing the implementation of these 

programs are contained in 40 CFR 

sections 51.160–.166; 52.21, .24; and 

part 51, Appendix S. 

Section 109 of the CAA requires EPA 

to promulgate a primary NAAQS to 

protect public health and a secondary 

NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once 

EPA sets those standards, states must 

develop, adopt, and submit a SIP to EPA 

for approval that includes emission 

limitations and other control measures 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See 

CAA § 110. Each SIP is also required to 

include a preconstruction review 

program for the construction and 

modification of any stationary source of 

air pollution to assure the maintenance 

of the NAAQS. The July 29, 2011, SIP 

revision revises Tennessee’s PSD and 

NNSR programs. 

C. Implementation of NSR Requirements 

for PM2.5

On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS, including changes to the NSR 

program. See 73 FR 28321. The NSR 

PM2.5 Rule revised the federal NSR 

program requirements to establish the 

framework for implementing 

preconstruction permit review for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and 

nonattainment areas. Specifically, the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule established the 

following NSR requirements to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) 

Require NSR permits to address directly 

emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; 

(2) establish significant emission rates 

for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX)); (3) establish 

PM2.5 emission offsets; (4) provide 

exceptions to PM10 grandfather policy; 

and (5) require states to account for 

gases that condense to form particles 

(‘‘condensables’’) in PM2.5 and PM10

emission limits in PSD or 

nonattainment NSR permits. 

Additionally, the NSR PM2.5 Rule 

authorized states to adopt provisions in 

their nonattainment NSR rules that 

would allow interpollutant offset 

trading. Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP 

revision addresses the PSD and NNSR 

requirements related to EPA’s May 16, 

2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule. A few key issues 

described in greater detail below 

include: the PM10 surrogate and 

grandfathering policy, condensable 

provision and interpollutant offset 

trading provision. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2Additional information on this issue can also be 

found in an August 12, 2009, final order on a title 

V petition describing the use of PM10 as a surrogate 

for PM2.5. In the Matter of Louisville Gas & Electric 

Company, Petition No. IV–2008–3, Order on 

Petition (August 12, 2009). 

3Sources that applied for a PSD permit under the 

federal PSD program on or after July 15, 2008, are 

already excluded from using the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy as a means of satisfying the PSD 

requirements for PM2.5. See 76 FR 28321. 

4 In addition to the NSPS for PM, it is noted that 

states regulated ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ for 

many years in their SIPs for PM, and the same 

indicator has been used as a surrogate for 

determining compliance with certain standards 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, regarding National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

1. PM10 Surrogate and Grandfathering 

Policy 

After EPA promulgated the NAAQS 

for PM2.5 in 1997, the Agency issued a 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Interim 

Implementation of New Source Review 

Requirements for PM2.5.’’ John S. Seitz, 

EPA, October 23, 1997 (the ‘‘Seitz 

memo’’). The Seitz memo was designed 

to help states implement NSR 

requirements pertaining to the new 

PM2.5 NAAQS in light of technical 

difficulties posed by PM2.5 at that time. 

Specifically, the Seitz memo stated: 

‘‘PM–10 may properly be used as a 

surrogate for PM–2.5 in meeting NSR 

requirements until these difficulties are 

resolved.’’ EPA also issued a guidance 

document entitled ‘‘Implementation of 

New Source Review Requirements in 

PM–2.5 Nonattainment Areas’’ (the 

‘‘2005 PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR 

Guidance’’), on April 5, 2005, the date 

that EPA’s PM2.5 nonattainment area 

designations became effective for the 

1997 NAAQS. This memorandum 

provided guidance on the 

implementation of the nonattainment 

major NSR provisions in PM2.5

nonattainment areas in the interim 

period between the effective date of the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area designations 

(April 5, 2005) and EPA’s promulgation 

of final PM2.5 NNSR regulations. Besides 

re-affirming the continuation of the 

PM10 Surrogate Policy for PM2.5

attainment areas set forth in the Seitz 

memo, the 2005 PM2.5 NNSR Guidance 

recommended that until EPA 

promulgated the PM2.5 major NSR 

regulations, ‘‘States should use a PM10

nonattainment major NSR program as a 

surrogate to address the requirements of 

nonattainment major NSR for the PM2.5

NAAQS.’’ 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA required 

that major stationary sources seeking 

permits must begin directly satisfying 

the PM2.5 requirements, as of the 

effective date of the rule, rather than 

relying on PM10 as a surrogate, with two 

exceptions. The first exception is a 

‘‘grandfathering’’ provision in the 

federal PSD program at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering 

provision applied to sources that had 

applied for, but had not yet received, a 

final and effective PSD permit before the 

July 15, 2008, effective date of the May 

2008 final rule. The second exception 

was that states with SIP-approved PSD 

programs could continue to implement 

the Seitz Memo’s PM10 Surrogate Policy 

for up to three years (until May 2011) 

or until the individual revised state PSD 

programs for PM2.5 are approved by 

EPA, whichever comes first. For 

additional information on the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule, see 73 FR 28321.2

On February 11, 2010, EPA proposed 

to repeal the grandfathering provision 

for PM2.5 contained in the federal PSD 

program at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi) and to 

end early the PM10 Surrogate Policy 

applicable in states that have a SIPapproved PSD program. See 75 FR 6827. 

In support of this proposal, EPA 

explained that the PM2.5

implementation issues that led to the 

adoption of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in 

1997 have been largely resolved to a 

degree sufficient for sources and 

permitting authorities to conduct 

meaningful permit-related PM2.5

analyses. 

On May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28646), EPA 

took final action to repeal the PM2.5

grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(xi). This final action ended 

the use of the 1997 PM10 Surrogate 

Policy for PSD permits under the federal 

PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21. In effect, 

any PSD permit applicant previously 

covered by the grandfathering provision 

(for sources that completed and 

submitted a permit application before 

July 15, 2008) 3 that did not have a final 

and effective PSD permit before the 

effective date of the repeal will not be 

able to rely on the 1997 PM10 Surrogate 

Policy to satisfy the PSD requirements 

for PM2.5 unless the application 

includes a valid surrogacy 

demonstration. See 76 FR 28646. In its 

July 29, 2011, SIP revision, Tennessee 

elected not to adopt the grandfathering 

provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi), into 

its PSD regulations. Therefore, 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision 

is consistent with federal regulations 

since it does not contain the repealed 

grandfathering provision. 

2. ‘‘Condensable’’ Provision 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA revised 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ for PSD and NNSR to add a 

paragraph providing that ‘‘particulate 

matter (PM) emissions, PM2.5 emissions 

and PM10 emissions’’ shall include 

gaseous emissions from a source or 

activity which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures and that on or after 

January 1, 2011, such condensable 

particulate matter shall be accounted for 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in permits issued. 

See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi), 

52.21(b)(50)(vi) and ‘‘Emissions Offset 

Interpretative Ruling’’ (40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix S). A similar paragraph added 

to the NNSR rule does not include 

‘‘particulate matter (PM) emissions.’’ 

See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D). 

On March 12, 2012, EPA proposed a 

rulemaking to amend the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ promulgated 

in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule regarding 

the PM condensable provision at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(i) and 

EPA’s Emissions Offset Interpretative 

Ruling. See 77 FR 15656. The 

rulemaking proposes to remove the 

inadvertent requirement in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule that the measurement of 

condensable ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ be included as part of the 

measurement and regulation of 

‘‘particulate matter emissions.’’ The 

term ‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ 

includes particles that are larger than 

PM2.5 and PM10 and is an indicator 

measured under various New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR 

part 60).4 Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP 

revision adopts EPA’s definition for 

regulated NSR pollutant for 

condensables (at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi)), including the term 

‘‘particulate matter emissions,’’ as 

promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

EPA’s review of Tennessee’s July 29, 

2011, SIP revision with regards to the 

NSR PM2.5 Rule condensable provision 

is provided below in Section III. 

3. Interpollutant Trading Provision 

The NSR PM2.5 final Rule authorized 

states to adopt provisions in their NNSR 

rules that would allow major stationary 

sources and major modifications 

locating in areas designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset 

emissions increases of direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors with 

reductions of either direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors in 

accordance with offset ratios contained 

in the approved SIP for the applicable 

nonattainment area. The inclusion, in 

whole or in part, of the interpollutant 

trading offset provisions for PM2.5 is 

discretionary on the part of the states. In 

the preamble to the NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

EPA included preferred or presumptive 

offset ratios, applicable to specific PM2.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34305 

precursors that states may adopt in 

conjunction with the new interpollutant 

trading offset provisions for PM2.5, and 

for which the state could rely on the 

EPA’s technical work to demonstrate the 

adequacy of the ratios for use in any 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. Alternatively, 

the preamble indicated that states may 

adopt their own ratios, subject to the 

EPA’s approval, that would have to be 

substantiated by modeling or other 

technical demonstrations of the net air 

quality benefit for ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

The preferred ratios were 

subsequently the subject of a petition for 

reconsideration which the EPA 

Administrator granted in 2009. As a 

result of the reconsideration, on July 21, 

2011, EPA issued a memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Revised Policy to Address 

Reconsideration of Interpollutant 

Trading Provisions for Fine Particles 

(PM2.5)’’ (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Interpollutant Trading 

Memorandum’’). The Interpollutant 

Trading Memorandum indicated that 

the existing preferred offset ratios are no 

longer considered presumptively 

approvable and that any precursor offset 

ratio submitted as part of the NSR SIP 

for a PM2.5 nonattainment area must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration showing the net air 

quality benefits of such ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 

will be applied. Tennessee’s July 29, 

2011, SIP revision adopts the 

interpollutant policy but not the 

preferred trading ratios. EPA’s analysis 

of Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP 

revision regarding interpollutant trading 

is provided below in Section III. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s SIP revision? 

Tennessee currently has a SIPapproved NSR program for new and 

modified stationary sources. TDEC’s 

PSD preconstruction rules are found at 

rule 1200–3–9–.01(4) and apply to major 

stationary sources or modifications 

constructed in areas designated 

attainment as required under part C of 

title I of the CAA with respect to the 

NAAQS. TDEC’s rule 1200–3–9–.01(5) 

includes permitting requirements for 

sources in and impacting nonattainment 

areas. Today, EPA is proposing to 

approve changes to Tennessee’s rules at 

1200–3–9–.01(4) and at 1200–3–9–.01(5) 

to update the State’s existing NSR 

program to be consistent with federal 

NSR regulations, amended in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule (at 40 CFR 51.165 and 

51.166). 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP 

revision adopts the following NSR PM2.5

Rule provisions into the Tennessee SIP 

at Chapter 12000–03–09: (1) 

Requirement for NSR permits to address 

directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor 

pollutants; (2) significant emission rates 

for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(SO2 and NOX); (3) PSD and NNSR 

requirements of states to address 

condensable PM in establishing 

enforceable emission limits for PM10 or 

PM2.5; (4) PM2.5 emission offsets; and (5) 

optional interpollutant trading 

provision set forth at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(11). 

These amendments to the Tennessee 

rules became state-effective June 27, 

2011. Specifically, the rules included in 

the July 29, 2011, SIP revision establish 

that the State’s existing NSR permitting 

program requirements for PSD and 

NNSR apply to the PM2.5 NAAQS and 

its precursors; revise the definitions of 

‘‘significant’’ at 1200–03–09– 

.01(4)(b)24(i) and (5)((b)1(x)(I) to 

establish significant emission rates for 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for 

major modifications at existing sources 

(as amended at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i)); 

revise the term ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ at 1200–03–09–.01(4)(b)47 

and (5)(b)1(xlix) to include PM2.5, 

recognize PM2.5 precursors and include 

the requirement that condensable 

emissions be accounted for in 

applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM (as amended at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii(C) and 51.166(b)(49); 

and adopt NNSR emission offsets (a 

ratio of 1:1) for direct PM2.5 at 1200–03– 

09–.01(5)2(v) (as amended at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(9)). Additionally, Tennessee’s 

SIP revision includes the interpollutant 

trading policy at rule 1200–03–09– 

.01(5)(b)2(v)(XV) (as amended at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(11)). These changes result in 

the Tennessee rules being equivalent to 

federal changes promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule. 

EPA’s May 18, 2011, final rulemaking 

repealed the PM10 ‘‘grandfathering’’ 

provision, as noted in Section II.C 

above. Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP 

revision does not include the 

grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 

52.21(i)(1)(ix) promulgated in the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule. Therefore, Tennessee’s July 

29, 2011, SIP submission is consistent 

with federal regulations. 

Further, Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, 

SIP revision adopts the elective 

interpollutant trading provision policy 

at 1200–03–09(5)(b)2.(v)(XV) set forth at 

40 CFR 51.165(a)(11) for the purpose of 

offsets under the PM2.5 NNSR program. 

However, the July 29, 2011, SIP revision 

does not adopt, into the Tennessee SIP, 

any trading ratios associated with the 

interpollutant trading policy established 

in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. As set forth in 

EPA’s July 21, 2011, Interpollutant 

Trading Memorandum, the preferred 

precursor offset ratios included in the 

preamble to the NSR PM2.5 Rule are no 

longer considered presumptively 

approvable. Therefore any precursor 

offset ratio submitted, to EPA for 

approval, as part of the NSR SIP for a 

PM2.5 nonattainment area must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration showing the suitability of 

the ratios for that particular 

nonattainment area. Consequently, if a 

major stationary source or source with 

a major modification in Tennessee 

requests to obtain offsets through 

interpollutant trading, the State of 

Tennessee would first be required, 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 51.165(a)(11), to revise its SIP to 

adopt appropriate trading ratios. 

Tennessee would need to submit to EPA 

a technical demonstration showing how 

either the preferred ratios established in 

the NSR PM2.5 Rule or the State’s own 

ratios are appropriate for the state’s 

particular PM2.5 nonattainment as well 

as a revision to the NSR program 

adopting the ratios into the SIP. EPA 

would then have to approve the 

demonstration and ratios into the 

Tennessee SIP prior to any major 

stationary source or major modification 

obtaining offsets through the 

interpollutant trading policy. 

EPA continues to support the basic 

policy that sources may offset increases 

in emissions of direct PM2.5 or of any 

PM2.5 precursor in a PM2.5

nonattainment area with actual 

emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 or 

PM2.5 precursor, respectively, in 

accordance with offset ratios as 

approved in the SIP for the applicable 

nonattainment area. Tennessee’s 

adoption of the interpollutant trading 

policy without trading ratios does not in 

any way allow a major stationary source 

or major modification in the state to 

obtain offsets through interpollutant 

trading, nor does it affect the 

approvability of Tennessee’s July 29, 

2010, SIP revision. 

As mentioned above, Tennessee’s July 

29, 2011, SIP revision also adopts into 

the State’s PSD regulations the 

requirement to address condensable PM 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing enforceable emission limits 

in PSD and NNSR permits, as 

established in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. As 

discussed in Section II.C.2, under a 

separate action, EPA has proposed to 

correct the inadvertent inclusion of 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

as an indicator for which condensable 

emissions must be addressed. See 77 FR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA 

published final rule changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 

52 regarding the CAA’s PSD and NNSR programs. 

On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published a notice of final action on the 

reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule 

changes. The December 31, 2002, and the November 

7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as 

the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ 

75656 (March 16, 2012). Further, on 

May 1, 2012, the State of Tennessee 

provided a letter to EPA with 

clarification of the State’s intent in light 

of EPA’s March 12, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking. Specifically, in that letter, 

the State of Tennessee requested that 

EPA not approve the term ‘‘particulate 

matter emissions’’ (at rule 1200–03–09– 

.01(4)(b)47(vi)) as part of the definition 

for ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ regarding 

the inclusion of t condensable emissions 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM. Therefore given the State’s request 

and EPA’s intention to amend the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ 

EPA is not proposing action to approve 

the terminology ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ into the Tennessee SIP (at 

1200–03–09–.01(4)(b)47(vi)) for the 

condensable provision in the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ EPA is, 

however, proposing to approve into the 

Tennessee SIP at 1200–03–09– 

.01(4)(b)47(vi) the remaining 

condensable requirement at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), which requires that 

condensable emissions be accounted for 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM2.5 and PM10.

In addition to the adoption of the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule mentioned above, TDEC’s 

July 29, 2011, SIP revision makes an 

administrative change to Chapter 1200– 

03–09 for PSD and NNSR. On June 13, 

2007, EPA took final action to revise the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules 5 to remove 

from federal law all provisions 

pertaining to clean units and the 

pollution control projects exemption 

that were vacated by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Rule. New York v. United 

States, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). See 

72 FR 32526. EPA’s efforts to remove 

the vacated provisions included 

removing the following language from 

the hybrid test applicability provision at 

40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f), 51.165(f)(6) 

and 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f): ‘‘For example, if a 

project involves both an existing 

emissions unit and a Clean Unit, the 

projected increase is determined by 

summing the values determined using 

the method specified in paragraph 

(a)(7)(iv)(c) of this section for the 

existing unit and determined using the 

method specified in paragraph 

(a)(7)(iv)(e) of this section for the Clean 

Unit.’’ 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, submission 

removes the above language from its 

hybrid test applicability provision at 

1200–03–09–.01(4)(c)4(vi) and 1200– 

03–09–.01(5)(b)2(xvii) (PSD and NNSR 

regulations respectively) to be 

consistent with federal language 

amended in the June 13, 2007, final 

rulemaking regarding the vacated 

portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule. 

EPA is proposing to approve the NSR 

PM2.5 requirements and administrative 

changes mentioned above into the 

Tennessee SIP because EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that this 

change is consistent with federal 

regulations and the CAA. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s July 29, 2011, SIP revision, 

which includes rules that modify 

Tennessee’s PSD and NNSR programs to 

adopt federal regulations amended in 

the NSR PM2.5 Rule. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is approvable because it is in 

consistent with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 31, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14106 Filed 6–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0285; FRL–9684–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 Annual and 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, and conditionally approve in 

part, the State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs), submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS