# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 75 Fed. Reg. 82536 2010

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 18 14:06:13 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.82536 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517; FRL-9244-9]
RIN2060-AQ62

Limitation ofApproval of Prevention of SignificantDeterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This action is another in a series ofsteps EPA istaking to implement the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)program for greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting sources. EPA is finalizing its proposed rulemaking to narrow its previous approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) PSD programs in 24 states that applyto GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, EPA is withdrawing its previous approval ofthose programs to the extent they apply PSD to GHGemitting sources below the thresholds in the final Tailoring Rule, which EPA promulgated by Federal Register notice dated June 3, 2010. Having narrowed its prior approval, EPA asks that each affected state withdraw from EPA consideration the part ofits SIP thatis

no longer approved. The states for whose SIPs EPA is narrowing approval

are: Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. DATES: This action is effective on December 30, 2010. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking underDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.govindex. Although listed in the index, some information isnot publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information

or otherinformation whose disclosure is restricted bystatute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.govorin hard copy at the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC,EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael S. Brooks, Air Quality Policy Division, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (C504-01), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,NC 27711; telephonenumber:(919) 541-3539;fax number:(919) 541-5509; e-mail address: brooks.michaels@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For information related to a specific state, local, ortribal permitting authority, please contact the appropriate EPA regional office:

EPA regional office Contact for regional office (person, mailing address, tele- Permitting authority phone number)

I

................................... Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 1, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109- Rhode Island, and Vermont. 3912, (617) 918-1661. II

.................................. Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Re- New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. gion 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3706. III

................................. Kathleen Anderson, Chief, Permits and Technical Assess- District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, ment Branch, EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Phila- Virginia, and West Virginia. delphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-2173. IV

................................. Lynorae Benjamin Chief, Regulatory Development Sec- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North tion, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-9040. V

.................................. J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and WisEPA Region 5, 77 WestJackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL consin. 60604-3507, (312) 886-1430. VI

................................. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 6, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-6435. VII

................................ Mark Smith, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance Branch, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7876. VIII

............................... Carl Daly, Unit Leader, Air Permitting, Monitoring & Mod- Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, eling Unit, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Den- and Wyoming. ver, CO 80202-1129, (303) 312-6416. IX

................................. Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office, EPA Region 9, 75 Arizona, California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, Indian Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) Country within Region 9 and Navajo Nation, and Ne972-3974. vada. X

.................................. Nancy Helm, Manager, Federal and Delegated Air Pro- Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. grams Unit, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6908.

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82536 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

I. General Information Entities potentially affected by this meet the applicability thresholds set

A. Does this actionapplyto me? rule also include sources in allindustry forth in the Tailoring Rule. The majority
groups, which have a direct obligation ofentities potentially affected by this Entities potentially affected by this under the Clean AirAct (CAA) to obtain action are expected to be in the rule include states, local permitting a PSD permit for GHGs for projects that following groups: authorities, and tribal authorities.
Industry Group NAICSa

A

griculture

,fishing

,and hunting

............................................................... 11. M

in

in

g ....................................................................................................... 21

. Utilities (electric, natural gas, other systems)

.......................................... 2211, 2212, 2213. Manufacturing (food, beverages, tobacco, textiles, leather)

.................... 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316. Wood product, paper m anufacturing

........................................................ 321, 322. Petroleum and coal products manufacturing

........................................... 32411, 32412, 32419. Chemical manufacturing

........................................................................... 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, 3259. Rubber product manufacturing

................................................................. 3261, 3262. Miscellaneous chemical products

............................................................. 32552, 32592, 32591, 325182, 32551. Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing

............................................. 3271, 3272, 3273, 3274, 3279. Primary andfabricated metal manufacturing

........................................... 3311, 3312, 3313, 3314, 3315, 3321, 3322, 3323, 3324, 3325, 3326, 3327,3328,3329. Machinery manufacturing

......................................................................... 3331, 3332, 3333, 3334, 3335, 3336, 3339. Computer and electronic products manufacturing

................................... 3341, 3342, 3343, 3344, 3345, 4446. Electrical equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing

............ 3351, 3352, 3353, 3359. Transportation equipment manufacturing

................................................. 3361, 3362, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3366, 3369. Furniture and related product manufacturing

........................................... 3371, 3372, 3379. Miscellaneous m anufacturing

................................................................... 3391, 3399. Waste management and remediation

...................................................... 5622, 5629. Hospitals/Nursing and residential care facilities

....................................... 6221, 6231, 6232, 6233, 6239. Personal and laundry services

................................................................. 8122, 8123. R

esidential/private households

................................................................. 8141. Non-Residential (Commercial)

................................................................. Not available. Codes only exist for private households, construction, and leasing/sales industries.
aNorth American Industry Classification System.

B. How is this preamble organized?

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

Outline

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me? B. How is this preamble organized? II. Overview ofthe Final Rule III. Proposed Rule IV. Final Rule

A. Action B. Legal Basis C. Legal Mechanisms forEPA Action V. Comments and Responses

A. Comments Regarding the Legal

Mechanism for the Current Action B. Comments on Potential Triggering of

Anti-Backsliding Provisions C. Comments on Persisting Practical

Difficulties at the State Level D. Comments onPreferred Alternative

Courses ofAction VI. Effective Date VII. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866-Regulatory

Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132-Federalism F. Executive Order 13175-Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045-Protection of

Children FromEnvironmental Health and SafetyRisks H. Executive Order 13211-Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I.National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act J.Executive Order 12898-Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act L. Judicial Review VIII. StatutoryLanguage

II.Overview ofthe Final Rule

This action finalizes EPA's proposal
to narrow the approval of SIPs thatwe included in what we call the proposed Tailoring Rule, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and TitleV Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule: Proposed Rule," 74FR 55292, 55340 (October 27, 2009). EPA finalized the Tailoring Rule by FederalRegister notice dated June 3, 2010, "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule: Final Rule, 75 FR 31,514. The Tailoring Rule, which followed a series ofactions by EPA thatwill trigger PSD applicability
to GHG-emitting sources as ofJanuary 2, 2011, limits PSD applicability for GHG emissions to larger sources.

The Tailoring Rule accomplished this purpose by setting thresholds atwhich GHG emissions become subject to regulation forPSD andTitle V purposes.' Under the Tailoring Rule, a

source becomes subject to PSD requirements based on its GHG emissions only ifitboth emits GHGs at

or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds,2 which are calculated on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis; and it emits GHGs at levels above the statutory 100/250 tons per year (tpy)mass-based threshold generally applicable to all PSD-regulated pollutants, and-ifit is being modified-has or will have an emission increase on a mass basis.The Tailoring Rule thresholds were designed
to relieve the overwhelming administrative burdens and costs associated with the dramatic increase in permitting burden that would have resulted from applying PSD at the statutory levels onJanuary 2, 2011. Instead, the Tailoring rule established a phasing in ofapplicability for GHG
sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters.

However, in proposing the Tailoring Rule, EPA recognized that even afterit finalized the Tailoring Rule, most ofthe SIPs with approved PSD programs would-until they were revised-

'Only thePSD provisions arerelevant for this action.

2The Tailoring Rule thresholds establish applicability ofthe PSD permittingprogram to GHG-emitting sources onlyifthey emit GHG in
amounts abovethe 75,000/100,000 tpyCO2e. 

### 82537

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82537 201082538 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

continue to apply PSD atthe statutory thresholds, even though the states would not have sufficient resources to implement the PSD program at those levels. Accordingly, the proposed Tailoring Rule included a proposal to

narrow EPA's previous approval ofSIPs suchthat the SIPs would only apply to GHG emissions at or above the higher thresholds established in the Tailoring Rule. When EPA finalized the Tailoring Rule, EPA did not, however, finalize that part ofthe proposal. Instead, EPA waited to collect more information from the states to determine whether such action was necessary, and, ifso, for which states. EPA is nowfinalizing that part ofthe Tailoring Rule proposal in 24
states.

Thus, in this action, EPA is narrowing its previous approval ofthose approved PSD SIP programs that apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, EPA is withdrawing their previous approvals ofthose programs to the extent the SIPs apply PSD to increases in GHG emissions from GHG-emitting sources with emissions below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The portions ofthe PSD programs regulating GHGs from GHGemitting sources with emissions at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds remain approved.

The effect ofEPA narrowing its approval in this manner is that the provisions ofpreviously approved SIPs that apply PSD to GHG emissions increases from sources emitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rule thresholds will have the status ofhaving been submitted by the state but notyet acted
upon by EPA. EPA suggests that affected
states take one oftwo actions to withdraw these no-longer-approved SIP PSD provisions. The state may submit a SIP revision for EPA's approval that incorporates the Tailoring Rule thresholds into the SIP.EPA will treat the approval ofsuch a submission as removing these no-longer-approved provisions. Or, a state may submit a letter to EPA stating that itis withdrawing these provisions from EPA's consideration. Forany state that takes neither ofthese actions, EPA intends to propose to disapprove those provisions. The disapproval, if finalized, will not result inthe need to resubmit another SIP revision, sanctions, ora federal implementation plan (FIP). This isbecause the provisions ofthe SIP thatwould be disapproved are not required for any purpose under the CAA or necessary to meet any CAA standard.

This action ensures that the federal law applicable in the affected states does not require PSD permitting for GHG emissions below the final Tailoring Rule thresholds as ofJanuary 2, 2011. Once the states take action to amend their state laws, then sources in the affected states will not be subject to federal or state requirements to obtain permits at the lower 100/250 tpy level. Most, ifnot all, ofthe affected states have alreadybegun taking steps toward completing these changes at the state level, and plan to complete changes to their state law and make those changes effective by January 2, 2011. In general, these states are nowin the process of (or have recently completed) incorporating the state law changes into SIP revisions
to submit to EPA for approval. The combination ofthis rule and state actions will, in the affected states, eliminate, or at least greatly minimize, the time during which GHG-emitting

sources thatare below the Tailoring Rule thresholds willbe subject to PSD in the state under either state or federal law while SIP revisions are being developed, submitted, and approved.

The states for whose SIPs EPA is narrowing approval are: Alabama, California,3 Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico,4North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, SouthDakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

III.Proposed Rule

We assume familiarity here with the statutory and regulatory background discussed in the preambles for the Tailoring Rule proposal and final action, and will only briefly summarize that background here.

Under the CAA PSD program, major stationary sources must obtain a permit prior to undertaking construction or modification projects thatwould result in specified amounts ofnew or increased emissions ofairpollutants that are subject to regulation under other provisions ofthe CAA. CAA sections 165(a)(1), 169(1). The permit must, among other things, include emission limitations associated with the best available control technology (BACT). CAA section 165(a)(4).

In recent months, EPA completed four distinct actions related to greenhouse
gases under the Clean AirAct. These actions include, as they are commonly called, the "Endangerment Finding" and "Cause or Contribute Finding," which

3 Specifically, EPA is narrowing itsapproval of the SIPs for 3 districts within California: Mendocino County, North CoastUnified, and Northern SonomaCounty.

4EPA is narrowing itsapproval ofboththe SIP for New Mexico, as well asthe SIPfor Albuquerque. we issued in a single final action,5the "Johnson Memo Reconsideration (also called the "Timing Decision")," 6the "Light-Duty Vehicle Rule (LDVR)," 7 and the "Tailoring Rule." 8 In the Endangerment Finding, which is governed by CAA §202(a), the Administrator exercised herjudgment, based onan exhaustive review and analysis ofthe science, to conclude that "six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare ofcurrent andfuture generations." 74FR at66,496. The Administrator also found "thatthe combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motorvehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under CAA section 202(a)." Id. The Endangerment Findingled directly topromulgation ofthe Vehicle Rule, also governed by CAA §202(a), in which EPA set standards for the emission ofgreenhouse gases for new motor vehicles built formodel years 2012-2016. 75 FR 25,324. The other two actions, the Johnson Memo Reconsideration and the Tailoring Rule, governed by the PSD andTitle V provisions in the CAA, were issued to address the automatic statutory triggering ofthese programs for greenhouse gases due tothe Vehicle Rule establishing the first controls for greenhouse gases under the Act.More specifically, the Johnson Memo Reconsideration provided EPA's interpretation ofa pre-existing definition in itsPSD regulations delineating the "pollutants" that are taken into account in determining whether a source must obtain aPSD permit and the pollutants each permit
must control. Regarding the Vehicle Rule, theJohnson Memo Reconsideration stated that such regulations, when theytake effect on January 2, 2011, will, by operation of the applicable CAA requirements, subject GHG-emitting sources to PSD

5"Endangerment and Cause orContribute Findings forGreenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) ofthe Clean Air Act." 74 FR 66,496 (December 15,2009).

6"Interpretation ofRegulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Clean AirAct Permitting Programs." 75 FR 17,004 (April 2, 2010). This action finalizes EPA's response to apetition for reconsideration of"EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program" (commonlyreferred to as the "Johnson Memo"), December 18, 2008.

7"Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule." 75 FR 25,324 (May 7, 2010).

8"Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule." 75 FR 31,514 (June 3, 2010).

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82538 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

requirements. 75 FR 17,004. The Tailoring Rule established a series of stepsby which PSD and TitleV permit requirements for greenhouse gases are phased in, starting with the largest

sources ofgreenhouse gas emissions. 75 FR 31,514. In addition,by Federal Register notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed tofind thatthe SIPs for 13 states with approved PSD
programs are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because they fail to apply their PSDprogram to GHGemitting sources, and EPAproposed to issue a "SIP call" under CAA section 110(k)(5) for those states thatwould require submission ofa corrective SIP revision. 75 FR 53,892. Atthe same time, EPAproposed a FIP, under CAA §110(c), for those states. 75 FR 53,883.

In the proposed Tailoring Rule, EPA proposed a major stationary source threshold of25,000 tpy forGHG on a CO 2ebasis, for at least a specified period. EPA recognized that even so, many SIPs with approved PSD programs would require PSD permitting ofGHGemitting sources at the 100/250 tpy statutory major source threshold generally applicable to regulated New Source Review (NSR)pollutants, as well

as at the "any increase" level for modifications, andthat these SIPs would remain in place even after we finalized the Tailoring Rule. Thus, in those states, until states revised those SIPs, sources would remain subject to these thresholds as a matter ofboth state and federal law even after we finalized the Tailoring Rule. This would result in the same problems ofoverwhelming administrative burdens and costs that

we designed the Tailoring Rule to address.

EPA also recognized that the solution
to these problems lay in the form ofSIP revisions that EPA would approve to raise the thresholds in approved state PSD permitting programs to conform to the Tailoring Rule (or, in the alternative, in the form ofincreased state resources).

Until the states could develop and submit for approval such SIP revisions, and EPA could approve them, EPA proposed to narrow its approval ofthe existing EPA-approved SIPs thatwould regulate GHG emissions atlevels below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Specifically, EPA proposed tonarrow its approval ofthepermitting threshold provisions, including the significance threshold provisions in the SIPs, to the
extent those provisions required PSD permits for sources whose GHG emissions fallbelow the proposed Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPAbased its proposed narrowing ofapproval onthe fact thatwhile the SIPs would require PSD to apply at the 100/250 tpy levels (andat the any mass increase level for modifications), the states do not have the resources to implement the program at that level, and thus the SIPs were inconsistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), which requires that states provide necessary assurances that they have adequate funding andpersonnel to implement their SIPs. EPAproposed to rely, as the legal mechanisms for the proposed narrowing ofapproval, on CAA section 301(a), which provides the EPA Administrator with general regulatory authority to issue regulations
necessary to carry out herCAA functions; and on the authority ofan agency to reconsider its actions inherent in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)section 553. In the alternative, EPA proposed to rely onthe error correction provision ofCAA section 110(k)(6). EPA did not propose to issue

a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5) for these SIP provisions.

In the final Tailoring Rule, EPA established a schedule tophase-in threshold levels ofGHG emissions below which a source will notbe required to obtain a PSDpermit. 9EPA established the initial levels (whichare higher than those inthe proposed Tailoring Rule) in the firsttwo steps of the phase-in schedule, committed the agency to take future steps addressing smaller sources, and excluded the smallest sources from PSD permitting for GHG emissions until at least April 30, 2016.

In addition, in the final Tailoring Rule, EPA chose revision ofthe definition ofthe term "subject to regulation" asthe mechanism to revise the PSD thresholds for GHG.Under the PSD program, a major stationary source is subject to PSD. A major stationary

source is defined as a source that emits 100/250 tpy on a mass basis ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and a regulated NSR pollutant, in turn,is defined as, among other things, a pollutant thatis subject to regulation under the CAA. Inthe final Tailoring Rule, EPA defined the term "subject to regulation" so that GHG emissions from

sources at or above specified thresholds (depending on the circumstances, 75,000 and/or 100,000 tpy on a CO 2e

9The finalTailoring Rule alsoestablished a threshold of100,000 tpy CO 2efor when a source would beconsidered a "major source" subject to title V permitting under 40CFR part 70 and part 71. This rule addresses issues related to adoption ofthe Tailoring Rule thresholds for state PSD
programs only. EPA will promulgate a separate rule
to address issues related to the adoption ofthe Tailoring Rulethreshold for approved state operating permit programs. EPA notes,however, that some state title V programs are incorporated into SIPs and that further corrections ofthe SIP may be necessaryin such cases. basis) are treated as subject to regulation. Thus, sources that emit that
amount are subject toPSD as long as that amount ofGHG also exceeds 100/ 250 tpy on a massbasis andwith respect to modifications there is a defined emissions increase. 1 0 Some states advised EPA that itis likely they wouldbe able toimplement the Tailoring Rule thresholds by interpreting the term "subject to regulation" in their SIPs. A state's implementation ofthe Tailoring Rule in this manner, or in any other manner, prior toJanuary 2, 2011, obviates the need for EPA to narrowits approval of the state's SIP. Thus,in the final Tailoring Rule, EPA delayed final action

on its proposal to narrow approval for any SIP-approved PSD programs. EPA deferred making any decision regarding whether tonarrow its approval ofany SIPs until after learning the process and time-line for states toimplement the Tailoring Rule. Based on information it had received, EPA expected thatmany states would quickly adopt the interpretation ofthe term "subject to regulation" used in the final Tailoring Rule, and thereby obviate the need for EPA to narrow its approval ortake any other action with respectto the SIP. Thus, EPA asked states to submit information-in the form ofletters due within 60 days ofpublication ofthe Tailoring Rule (whichwe refer to as the 60-day letters)-that would helpEPA determine whether it needed to narrow its approval ofany SIPs.

Almost all states submitted 60-day letters. The letters, in conjunction with other information EPAreceived, indicate that the states, localities, and other jurisdictions maybe divided into three categories. The first, which includes 7 states, 35 subsections of states, the District ofColumbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Indian Territory, does not have an approved SIP PSD permitting program. Instead, federal requirements apply. Thus,in these jurisdictions, the thresholds in the Tailoring Rule will apply without further action.

The second category includes the
states (or districts within states) whose SIPs do not appear to apply the PSD program to GHG-emitting sources. As a result, EPAproposed a SIP call and FIP for these states by notice dated September 2, 2010. 75 FR 53892. Based

on the 60-day letters, letters EPA received in response to the proposed SIP call and FIP (whichwe refer to as

10Unlikethe proposed Tailoring Rule, the final Tailoring Rule didnot set significance levels for GHG emissions. 

### 82539

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82539 2010

### 82540 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

the 30-day letters), and additional information EPAhas received, EPA finalized (atabout the same time asthis action)a SIP call in 13 states, including 4 districts within states.

The remaining 30 states and 6 districts within states, the third category, have approved SIPs that apply their PSD program to GHG-emitting

sources. In those states, absent further action, sources emitting GHGs at or above the 100/250 tpy levels willbe subject to PSD requirements as of January 2, 2011, ifthey construct or modify. Ofthese localities, 6 states and 4 districts within states have indicated that theywould interpret their SIPs to regulate GHG emissions only above the Tailoring Rule thresholds, and no further action was needed to do so. EPA approved a SIP for 1 state-New Yorkfor the first timein November 2010, and that original approval itselfwas limited
to exclude the part ofthe PSD program that applies to GHG emissions below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. All or part of twenty-four states, including 4 districts, indicated thatthey would need to submitSIP revisionsto EPA in order to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Some ofthese states indicated, however, thatthey would not be able to complete these changes prior
to January 2, 2011. Some states have completed their SIP revisions and submitted them toEPA, and EPA expects to take final action on them promptly. EPA has only signed SIP revision approvals for two states, Alabama and Mississippi, though neither ofthese approvals has yet been published as ofthe signing ofthis rule. These states-including those that have indicated thatthey would submit SIP revisions to EPA to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, but for which EPA has not approved such SIP revision

as ofthe date ofthis rule-are included in this rule.

It shouldbe noted thatthis rule focuses on eliminating the PSD obligations under federal lawfor

sourcesbelow the Tailoring Rule thresholds in states inthe third category, those with approved SIPs that do not incorporate the Tailoring Rule. The sources in those states also have permitting obligations under state law. EPA has strongly encouraged states to eliminate the state law obligations by revising their state law aspromptly as possible. Such a revisionto state law

can eliminate those sources' state obligations, evenbefore the state is able
to process the revision as a SIP revision and submit it to EPA for approval. In almost all cases, states are proceeding to revise their state lawto reflect the Tailoring Rule thresholds and will have done soby January 2,2011, or very soon thereafter.

In their 60-day letters, none ofthe
states indicated either thatthey intended toregulate GHG-emitting

sources at a level below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, or that they could or would increase their permitting

resources to do so.
IV. Final Rule

A. Action

EPA is taking final action to narrow its approval ofthe SIPs for certain
states. In the final Tailoring Rule, EPA established levels ofGHG emissions below which PSD provisions do not apply. However, some SIPs currently apply the PSD program to a source that emits GHGs below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, at levels at which, under the Tailoring Rule, GHGs are not a pollutant "subject to regulation" under the CAA,

so thatthe emitting source is not amajor stationary source subject to PSD on account ofits GHG emissions. Thus, EPA isnow narrowing its approval of

some approved SIPs so thatthe PSD programs under those SIPs are approved
to apply to GHG-emitting sources only ifthose sources emit GHGs at or above Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA is accomplishing this narrowing by withdrawing itsprevious approval of those PSD programs to the extent they apply to GHG-emitting sources that emit below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.

Those provisions ofSIPs from which EPA iswithdrawing its approval will be treated as submitted by the state for approval and not yet acted uponby EPA. Ifa state submits a SIP revision for EPA's approval that incorporates the Tailoring Rule thresholds into the SIP, EPA will treat the approval ofthe submission as removing these nolonger-approved provisions. We note that once SIP revisions incorporating the Tailoring Rule thresholds are approved after the issuance ofthis rule, they will supersede the changes made in this rule. Thatis, this rule amends the regulatory language in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) approving each ofthe relevant SIPs. WhenEPA approves aSIP revision, EPA will

remove from the CFRthe regulatory language added by this rule.

Alternatively, EPA suggests thatthe affected states may withdraw those provisions from EPA's consideration through aletter to the EPA Regional Administrator. EPA offers the following

as model language thatthe state should feel free to use, but is not required to

use:

In its final rule entitled "Limitation of Approval ofPrevention ofSignificant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans" and published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], EPA amended the Code of Federal Regulations at [LOCATION OF CFR AMENDMENT RELEVANT TO STATE/ DISTRICT] and withdrew EPA's approval of that portion of [STATE]'s SIP thatwould require sources to seek PSD permitting for emissions ofGHGs inamounts below the thresholds specified inthe Tailoring Rule, 74 FR 55292 (October 27, 2009). [STATE] now acts to withdraw fromEPA's consideration that portion of [STATE['s SIP fromwhich EPA withdrew its approval in that action. These provisions are no longer intended for inclusion in the SIP, and are nolongerbefore EPA for its approval or disapproval.

Ifa state does not withdraw the SIP provisions for which EPA isrescinding approval, and does not submit a SIP revision incorporating the Tailoring Rule thresholds thatwould supercede this rule, EPA intends to propose to disapprove therelevant provisions in the near future. Any disapproval ofsuch SIP provisions-again, those applying PSD to GHG-emitting sources that emit GHGs belowthe Tailoring Rule threshold-will not,iffinalized, result in the need to resubmit another SIP revision, in sanctions, or in a FIP. This isbecause the relevant provisions are not necessary to meet any applicable CAA requirement. SeeCAA sections 110(k)(3) (requirements for SIP disapproval), 179(a)(2) (sanctions).

In the proposed Tailoring Rule, EPA proposed to narrow its approval for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. EPA nowfinalizes this narrowing of approval for only the SIPs with PSD programs that will apply to GHG emissions as ofJanuary 2, 2011, and for which the states have not either said that theyinterpret their SIPs to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds for GHG emissions without the need for further action, or completed taking any further action necessary to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. This rule does not include final action on theproposal to narrow EPA's approval of SIPs for states that do
not have approved PSD SIP programs (the first category previously described), and states thathave approved PSD SIP
programs that do not apply to GHGs (the second category previously described). This rule also does not take final action

on the proposal to narrow EPA's approval of SIPs for states thathave PSD SIP programs that cover GHG emissions, and that have already incorporated the Tailoring Rule thresholds via interpretation, SIP revision, or any other mechanism. The language being used

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82540 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

for this final narrowing rulereflects changes from the language proposed in the Tailoring Rule in order to clarify and reflect the decisions about permitting thresholds reached in the final Tailoring Rule.

The states for whom EPA is narrowing its approval ofthe SIP PSD program in this action include: Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

B. LegalBasis

EPA isnarrowing its previous approval for each ofthe affected SIPs because EPA erred when it approved each SIP's PSD program. In those approvals, EPA failed to account for an important flaw in the SIP. As a result, EPA isrescinding itsprevious approval for the part ofthe SIP thatis flawed, and EPA is leaving in place its previous approval for the rest ofthe SIP. The flaw is thatthe applicability provisions ofthe PSD program (whichdetermined the pollutants to which PSD permitting applies) were phrased so broadly that they could, under certain circumstances, sweep in more sources than the program could accommodate in light ofthe resources that, under the SIP-in accordance with what we refer
to as the "state assurances" provision under CAA § 110(a)(2)(E)(i)-were available or for which a plan was in place to acquire. The part ofPSD applicability that isbroader than what the state assurances covered is the part that exceeds EPArequirements for PSD applicability. The following section discusses thisbasis inmore detail, beginning with the PSD applicability provisions; then the state assurances provisions; and then how the two provisions, read together, gave rise to the flaws in the SIPs.

1.PSD Applicability

Each ofthe states subject to this rule has an approved PSD SIP program that applies to sources ofpollutants subject
to regulation under the CAA. Some states' programs meet EPA'sPSD requirements as they read prior to promulgation ofthe 2002 NSR rulemaking, which we refer to as the NSR Reform rule. These pre-Reform

11

"Preventionof Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-toFuture-Actuals Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution SIPs, include a PSD applicability provision that provides that PSD applies
to "any air pollutant subject to regulation." 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i) (2001). Other states subject to this rule have an approved PSD program that includes the NSR Reformrule. The Reform requirements, replaced the term "any air pollutant subject to regulation" with the term "regulatedNSR pollutant," 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i), and defined that latter term to include pollutants regulated under specified provisions ofthe CAA as well as "any pollutant thatis otherwise subject to regulation under [the CAA]." 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(iv). This quoted provision is similar to the pre-Reform provision,

as both include the phrase "subject to regulation" in reference to the types of air pollutants that willbe subject to the PSD program. Thus, each ofthe states subject tothis rule has an approved PSD program-whether pre-Reform or Reform-that applies to any air pollutant thatis "subject toregulation" under the CAA.

These applicability provisions mean that under federal law,in each ofthese SIPs, PSD will expand to cover additional sources that emit a pollutant different than the ones already covered under the PSD program as soon as EPA promulgates a rule regulating that pollutant under any other provision of the CAA. Depending on the pollutant and the number and size ofsources that emit it,these applicability provisions could result in a significant and rapid expansion ofthe PSD program. Thisis precisely what ishappening at present,

now thatEPA haspromulgated the LDVR, to take effect onJanuary 2, 2011,
at which time GHGs will become subject
to regulation under CAA section 202(a).

Importantly, the states affected bythis action, while including in their SIPs a PSD applicability provision that applies PSD to any pollutant "subject to regulation," generally do not interpret their applicability provision, or any other provision in their SIPs, to incorporate limits on PSD applicability with respect to a new pollutant and the SIPs do not contain any other mechanism that would allow the State
to interpret applicability more narrowly. As a result, the affected states' applicability provisions include no way to limitthe speed or extent ofthe expansion a PSD program mightbe required toundergo to regulate new pollutants.

The case ofGHGs has highlighted the potential scale ofa PSD program for a

new pollutant under such open-ended

Control Projects," Final Rule, 67 FR 10816 (December 2, 2002). provisions. As described in the final Tailoring Rule, EPApromulgated the LDVR, which is therule that, upon January 2, 2011, when ittakes effect, subjects GHGs to regulation. The LDVR identifies GHGs as the group of six air pollutants made up ofcarbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. 75 FR 31514, 31519 (June 3, 2010) (Tailoring Rule discussion); 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010) (LDVR). Accordingly, the SIPs affected by this action will, as ofJanuary 2, 2011,
treat GHGs as a pollutant "subject to regulation" andtherefore apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources. As previously discussed, these SIPs will apply PSD to

new GHG-emitting sources atthe 100/ 250 tpy levels and to modified GHGemitting sources at the any-massincrease levels. None ofthese SIPs, as currently approved, permits the interpretation ofthe PSD applicability

more narrowly, to apply to only GHGemitting sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In contrast, as previously noted, several other states

are able to interpret their SIPs more narrowly and, as a result, are not subject
to this action.

The scale ofthe administrative program needed to effectively permit all

sources emitting GHGs at the 100/250 tpy levels hashighlighted the unconstrained nature ofthe SIPs' applicability provisions. EPAhas recognized that a PSD program regulating GHGs at the 100/250 tpy levels is administratively unmanageable and creates absurd results thatwere not intended by Congress when itpassed the CAA. Thus, in the Tailoring Rule, EPA phased in GHG PSD applicability,

so that at the outset PSD applies to GHG-emitting sources only ifthey also emit GHG in amounts above the 75,000/ 100,000 tpy CO 2e thresholds set out in that rule.12 EPA included this limitin its regulations, andthrough this limit greatly reduced the extent ofPSD applicability. This limitwas set at a level at which EPA determined states would have the resources to implement

a PSD program for GHG emissions. By contrast, each ofthese SIPs applies GHG PSD applicability more broadlyindeed, much more broadly, to farmore

12In its firstphase, starting January 2, 2011, PSD requirements forGHGs apply to sources that are required to seeka PSD permit for non-GHG pollutants, and that also increase emissions ofGHG by at least 75,000 tpyCO 2e. In its second phase, starting July 1, 2011, PSDrequirements for GHGs will also apply to new sources that emit or with potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO 2 e, and existing sources that emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e andthat undertake a modification that increases net emissions ofGHGs by at least 75,000 tpyCO2e. 

### 82541

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82541 2010

### 82542 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

sources and to much smaller sourcesthan EPA's regulations do.

We note thatthere is nothing inherently problematic about a SIP imposing PSD applicability, or applying other control requirements, asbroadly

as a state might choose. SIPs may lawfully do so and EPA may lawfully approve them in accordance with the provisions of section 110(a) ofthe CAA. Similarly, there is nothing inherently problematic with a SIP failing to include any measures to limit the scope ofits control requirements. Even so, the SIP
must provide for adequate resources, andmust do so on the appropriate schedule, as discussed next.

2.State Assurances ofAdequate Resources

Each ofthe states subject to this rule

was also required to include in its SIP adequate state "assurances," in accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i). This provision requires the SIP to "provide * * * necessary

assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under State * * * lawto carry out such implementation plan* * *." EPA has implemented thisrequirement in 40 CFR 51.280, which provides,

Eachplan mustinclude adescription of the resources available tothe State and local agencies at the date ofsubmission ofthe plan and any additionalresources neededto carry out theplan during the5-year period following its submission. The description must include projections ofthe extent to whichresources will be acquired at l-, 3-, and 5-year intervals.
These CAA and regulatory requirements concerning assurances apply tothe SIP

as a whole, including the PSD program. Therefore, at the time thatthe state submitted the PSD provisions ofthe SIP for EPA approval, the SIP was required
to include assurances that adequate

resources wouldbe available to implement the SIP in its entirety, including the PSD program.

As previously noted, the affected SIPs included expansive PSD applicability provisions for newly regulated pollutants, without a means to limitthat applicability. Under these circumstances, state assurances are needed to assure adequate resources in the event ofan expansion ofthe PSD
program to new pollutants, evenwhen this would require a rapid and sizeable expansion oftheresources dedicated to the state PSD program, whether due to the large number ofsources emittingthe

new pollutant or any other reason. EPA has the authority to define, under CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), what assurances
are "necessary" so that the state will have "adequate" resources. To be sure, EPA does not read the assurances requirement to require thatthe state should somehow hold in reserve large
amounts ofresources to cover the possibility that the PSD program would undergo such a large and rapid expansion. However, EPA does read the requirement to require thatthe state have aplan for acquiring the requisite additional amount ofresources in the

case ofan expansion in PSD applicability. Moreover, that plan should include an implementation schedule thatwould be consistent with the timing ofexpansion in PSD applicability. PSD expansion may occur quite rapidly because PSD requirements apply immediately once they are triggered by subjecting a pollutant to regulation. This isbecause ofthe CAA requirement that stationary sources may not construct or modify unless they first have acquired a permit. CAA section 165(a). Thatis, as soon as a pollutant is subject toregulation-as will occur for GHGs onJanuary 2, 2011-the pollutant-emitting sources towhich PSD then applies cannot lawfully undertake construction or modification projects without first procuring a PSD permit.

It is clear, however, thatnone ofthe SIPs affected by this action include such

a plan among their assurances. Inthe proposed Tailoring Rule, EPA stated that at the time that the LDVR triggers PSD applicability, ifit triggers such applicability at the 100/250 tpylevel, then far greater numbers ofsources will require permitting than currently do. As

a result, EPA added, the administrative burdens associated with permitting small sources for affected state and local permitting authorities would overwhelm the authorities. For each state, EPA proposed to rescind approval ofthe part ofthe SIP that applies PSD
to sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, unless the state demonstrated that ithad adequate

resources to permit at the lowerlevels. During the comment period on this proposal, no authority contested this understanding ofthe facts, none stated that they could administer PSD at the 100/250 tpy levels, and none contested the proposal on grounds thatthey have adequate resources. In the final Tailoring Rule, EPArefined, onthe basis ofcomments, the precise extent of the administrative burden,but confirmed that theburden was overwhelming and that states lacked adequate resources. In the final Tailoring Rule, EPArequested that
states submit letterswithin 60 days of publication ofthe rule describing how they intended to implement PSD for GHG-emitting sources.' 3 In those letters,

none ofthe states claimed they could,

or intended to, implement the Tailoring Rule at the statutory levels. From all this, itis clear that none ofthe states had included in their state assurances an adequate plan to acquire resources to administer the PSD program for their GHG-emitting sources at the 100/250 tpy level.

It mustbe emphasized thatthere is nothing inherently problematic with a SIP whose state assurances do not include the previously-described plan to acquire additional resources. Only SIPs that lack any constraints to limitPSD applicability for new pollutants to match their resources must include such

a plan.

3.Flaw in SIP

Based on the previous analysis, it is clear thatthe SIPs subject to this action

are flawed. They each are structured in

a manner that may impose PSD applicability on new pollutants in an unconstrained manner, andyet they do
not have a plan for acquiring resources to adequately administer any large new components ofthe PSD program, and to do so on the same schedule that sources may become subject toPSD. As previously explained, the SIPs' unconstrained applicability is notby itselfa flaw. The flaw is the combination ofthat unconstrained applicability and the failure ofthe SIP
to plan for adequate resources for that applicability, and do so on the appropriate time-table. In short, the SIPs' PSD applicability provisions and their state assurances are mismatched and therefore the SIP is flawed. As previously discussed, EPA's recently promulgated GHG rules have highlighted this flaw.

EPA notes that since the enactment of the PSD provisions, EPA has periodically subjected pollutants to control for the first time, thereby triggering PSD applicability. Atthe time the affected SIPs were submitted and approved, this structural flawcould have been recognized. That is, itcould have been recognized that (i) the PSD applicability provisions were essentially unconstrained, but thatthe resources the state assured would be available

were constrained; and (ii)at somepoint in time, a pollutant could become newly regulated that would expand PSD applicability to a point that would require resources beyond whatthe state assured would be available. Itbears reiterating that EPA has discretion to interpret the CAA's SIP requirements,

13The 60-dayletters are available athttp:// www.epa.goviNSR/2OlOletters.html.

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82542 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

including what state assurances are required. In EPA's view, the breadth of the affected SIPs' provisions concerning PSD applicability, combined with the limited state assurances, constitutes a flaw.

C.LegalMechanisms forEPAAction

Because the SIPs were flawed,EPA approval ofthem was in error. Two mechanisms are available for addressing that error: The error correction mechanism provided under CAA section 110(k)(6), 42 U.S.C. section 7410(k)(6), or EPA's inherent general authority toreconsider its own actions under CAA section 301(a), 42 U.S.C. section 7601(a), read in conjunction with CAA section 110(k) and other statutory provisions, and case law holding that an agency has inherent authority toreconsider its prior actions.

1.Error Correction Under CAA Section 110(k)(6)

CAA section 110(k)(6) provides as follows:

Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (orpart thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action asappropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and thebasis thereof shall be provided to the State and public.
The key provisions are thatthe Administrator has the authority to "determine [ ]"when a SIP approval

was "inerror," and when she does so, she may then revise the SIP approval "as appropriate," in the same manner as the approval, and without requiring any further submission from the state. With this action, EPA is determining that its action approving the PSD SIP provisions

was "inerror" dueto the mismatch, previously discussed, between the PSD applicability provisions and the state

assurances. EPA is further determining that the appropriate action EPA can take-in light ofEPA's proposal as part oftheproposed Tailoring Rule-to revise that prior action is to rescind approval ofthe PSD program to the
extent it applies PSD to GHG-emitting

sourcesbelow the Tailoring Rule threshold. Thus, EPA is narrowing its approval ofthe PSD programs as indicated. EPA may consider further action in the future.

a. Type ofError

These determinations are authorized under the CAA. First, approval ofthe SIPs in lightofthe mismatch constitutes

an "error"within the meaning ofCAA section 110(k)(6). As previously quoted, CAA section 110(k)(6) provides EPA with the authority to correct its own "error," but nowhere does this provision

or any other provision in the CAA define what qualifies as "error." Thus, the term should be given its plain language, everyday meaning. Webster's II Dictionary defines an "error" as: "(1)

an act, assertion, orbeliefthat unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right or true, (2)the state of having false knowledge

. . . (4) a mistake

. . ." Webster's

### IINewRiverside UniversityDictionary 442 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1988). Similarly, the Oxford American CollegeDictionary 467 (2d ed. 2007) defines "error" as "a mistake"

or "the state or condition ofbeing wrong in conduct orjudgment." These definitions are broad, and include all unintentional, incorrect or wrong actions or mistakes.

The legislative history ofCAA section 110(k)(6) is silent regarding the definition oferror, but the timing ofthe
enactment ofthe provision suggests a broad interpretation. The provision was enacted shortly after the Third Circuit decision in ConcernedCitizensof Bridesburgv.U.S.EPA, 836 F.2d 777 (1987). In Bridesburg,the court adopted

a narrow interpretation ofEPA's authority to unilaterally correct errors. The court stated that such authority was limited totypographical and other similar errors, and stated that any other change to a SIP mustbe accomplished through aSIP revision.Id.at 786. In Bridesburg,EPA determined that it lacked authority to include odor regulations as part ofa SIP unlessthe odor regulations had a significant relationship to achieving a NAAQS, and

so directly acted toremove 13-year-old odor provisions from the Pennsylvania SIP. Id.at 779-80. EPA found the previous approval ofthe provisions to have been an inadvertent error, and so used its "inherent authority to correct an inadvertent mistake" to withdraw its prior approval ofthe odorregulations without seeking approval ofthe change from Pennsylvania. Id.at 779-80, 785. After noting thatCongress hadnot contemplated the need for revision on the grounds citedby EPA, Id. at 780, the
court found that EPA's "inherent authority to correct an inadvertent mistake" was limited to corrections such

as "typographical errors," and that instead EPA was required to use the SIP revision process toremove the odor provision from the SIP. Id.at 785-86.

When the court made its determination in Bridesburg in 1987, there was no provision explicitly addressing EPA's error correction authority under the CAA. In 1990, Congress passed CAA section 110(k)(6), apparently for the purpose of overturning the Bridesburgopinion. This is apparentbecause CAA section 110(k)(6) both (i) authorizes EPA to correct SIP approvals and other actions that were "in error," which, as previously noted,broadly covers any mistake, andthereby contrasts with the holding in Bridesburg thatEPA's presection 110(k)(6) authority was limited
to correction oftypographical or similar mistakes; and (ii)provides thatthe error correction need not be accomplished via the SIP revision or SIP call process, which contrasts with the holding of Bridesburg requiring a SIP revision. Because Congress apparently intended CAA section 110(k)(6) to overturn Bridesburg,the definition of"error" in that provision shouldbe sufficiently broad to encompass the error thatEPA asserted it made in its approval action
atissue in Bridesburg, which goes well beyond typographical or other similar mistakes.

EPA hasused CAA section 110(k)(6) in the pastto correct errors ofanontechnical nature. For example, EPAhas used CAA section 110(k)(6) as authority
to make substantive corrections to

remove a variety ofprovisions from federally approved SIPs that are not related to the attainment or maintenance ofNAAQS or any other CAA requirement. See, e.g., "Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; Kentucky: Approval ofRevisions to the State Implementation Plan," 75 FR 2440 (Jan. 15, 2010) (correcting the SIP by removing a provision, approved in 1982, used to address hazardous or toxic air pollutants); "Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans; New York," 73 FR 21,546 (April 22, 2008) (issuing a direct final rule to correct aprior SIP correction from 1998 that removed general duties from the SIPbut neglected toremove a reference
to "odor"in the definition of"air contaminant or air pollutant"); "Approval andPromulgation of Implementation Plans; NewYork," 63 FR 65557 (Nov. 27, 1998) (issuingdirect final rule to correct SIP by removing a general duty "nuisance provision" that had been approved in 1984); "Correction ofImplementation Plans; American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada State Implementation Plans," 63 FR 34,641 (June 27, 1997) (correcting five SIPs bydeleting a variety of administrative provisions concerning variances, hearing board procedures, and fees thathad been approved during the 1970s). 82543

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82543 2010No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

EPA's approval ofthe PSD SIP provisions, in lightofthe mismatch between those provisions and the state
assurances, was "in error" within the meaning ofCAA section 110(k)(6). Under the familiar Chevrontwo-step framework for interpreting administrative statutes, an agency must, under Chevron step 1, determine whether "Congress has directly spoken
to the precise question at issue." Ifso, "the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent ofCongress." However, under Chevron step 2, if"the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer isbased

on a permissible construction ofthe statute." Chevron U.S.A. Inc.v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).

As previously discussed, the PSD SIPs

were flawed due to the mismatch between the PSD applicability provisions and the state assurances. EPA's action approving the PSD SIPs in the face ofthatflaw was "in error" under CAA section 110(k)(6) in accordance with Chevron step 1.As previously discussed, "error" shouldbe defined broadly to include any mistake, and approval ofa flawed SIP is a mistake.

Even ifthe term "error"is not considered unambiguously to encompass the mistake that EPA made in approving the PSD SIPs under Chevronstep 1, and instead is considered ambiguous on this question, then under Chevronstep 2EPA has sufficient discretion to determine that its approval action meets the definition of "error." That is, under CAA section 110(k)(6), both the breadth ofthe term "error" and the authorization for EPA to "determine[ ]"-which is a directive that isinherently discretionary-when it made an error, point towards EPA having sufficient discretion to identify the mismatch inthe SIPs as aflaw and
to identify its action in approving the PSD SIPs inthe face ofthat mismatch

as an error under that provision.

b. Narrowing ofApproval

Under CAA section 110(k)(6), once EPA determines thatits action in approving the PSD SIPs was in error, EPA has the authority to correct the

error in an "appropriate" manner, and through the same process asthe original approval, but without requiring any further state submission. The term "appropriate" is open-ended, and therefore confers broad discretion upon EPA to fashion a reasonable type of correction. More generally, CAA section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to "determine[ ]"that its action was in
error, and does not direct or constrain that determination in any manner. That is, the provision does not identify any factors that EPA must, or may not, consider in making the determination. This further indicates thatthis provision confers broad discretion upon EPA.

EPA's action corrects the error by rescinding EPA's approval ofthe PSD threshold provisions to the extent they apply PSD requirements to sources of GHG emissions below the final Tailoring Rule thresholds. Correcting the error in this fashion is appropriate because it narrows the approval tothe PSD requirements to the extent they apply to GHG-emitting sources at or above the final Tailoring Rule thresholds. This approach (i) renders the PSD applicability provisions consistent with EPA regulations and (ii) solves the mismatch previously described by assuring that SIP PSD applicability to GHG sources is consistent with EPA's interpretation of the scope ofthe state assurances of adequate resources for PSD administration.

Correcting the error inthis fashionnarrowing the approval ofSIPs-is also consistent with the approach thatthe affected states are takingto administer PSD to GHG-emitting sources. The states have advised EPA that they are proceeding to develop SIP revisions to implement the Tailoring Rule and thereby narrow their SIP PSD programs to GHG-emitting sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA's record in the Tailoring Rule indicates that the
states should have adequate resources to implement their PSD program for GHGemitting sources at the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In contrast, no state has informed EPA that itprefers to maintain its PSD applicability atthe 100/250 tpy level and thatitintends to acquire the additional resources to do so.

At this time, EPA isnot further addressing, and therefore is not rescinding its approval of, the affected SIPs' PSD applicability provisions to the
extent they remain unconstrained in the

manner in which they incorporate newly regulated pollutants in respects other than PSD applicability to GHGemitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. As aprocedural matter, EPA did not propose to do so in the Tailoring Rule proposal and EPA did
not receive any comments indicating that it should do so. In addition, CAA section 110(k)(6) gives EPA the authority tomake corrections "as appropriate." This language provides EPA with discretion to choose how to make corrections. The current problem resulting from EPA's erroneous approvals ofthe SIPs in question is limited tothe regulation ofGHG emissions, and the current rule addresses this problem. The scope of this action does not foreclose further action to address EPA's error in the future. An agency may properly address

an issue in step-by-step fashion. See,
e.g., Grand CanyonAir TourCoalitionv. F.A.A., 154 F.3d 455 (DC Cir. 1998), City of

Las Vegas v. Lujan,891 F.2d 927 (DC Cir. 1989). 75 FR at 31544.

In accordance with CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA has conducted this narrowing ofapproval throughnoticeand-comment rulemaking, which is the

same manner as EPA conducted the prior approval.

2.Reconsideration Under CAA Section 301 and Case Law

In the alternative to the error correction under CAA section 110(k)(6) discussed above, EPA isusing its authority to reconsider its prior approval actions in order to narrow its approval ofthe SIPs atissue. This authority lies in CAA section 301(a), read in conjunction with CAA section 110(k) and other statutory provisions, and case law holding that an agency has inherent authority to reconsider itsprior actions.

EPA approved some ofthe SIP PSD provisions affected bythis rule prior to 1990, under the authority ofCAA section 110 as itread prior to amendment by the 1990 CAA Amendments. Prior to the amendments, CAA section 110(a)(2) authorized EPA
to "approve or disapprove [a SIP], or any portion thereof." EPA approved the rest ofthe SIP PSD provisions affected by this rule after 1990, i.e., under the authority ofCAA section 110(k)(3)-(4)

as added bythe 1990 CAA Amendments. These sections authorize EPA to approve a SIP submittal "as a whole," "approve [the SIP submittal] in part and disapprove [it] in part," or issue

a "conditional approval" ofa SIP submittal. CAA section 110(k)(3)-(4).

In approving the SIPs under either CAA section 110(a)(2) as itread priorto 1990 or CAA section 110(k), EPA retained inherent authority to revise that action. The courts have found that an administrative agency has the inherent authority to reconsider its decisions, unless Congress specifically proscribes the agency's discretion to do so. See,
e.g., Gun South,Inc.v. Brady,877 F.2d 858, 862 (11th Cir. 1989) (holdingthat agencies have implied authority to reconsider and rectify errors even though the applicable statute and regulations do not provide expressly for such reconsideration); Trujillov. GeneralElectricCo., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir. 1980) ("Administrative agencies have an inherent authority to 

### 82544 Federal Register/Vol. 75,

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82544 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

reconsider their own decisions, since the power to decide in the first instance carries with itthe power to reconsider").

Section 301(a) ofthe CAA, read in conjunction with CAA section 110 and the case lawjust described, provides statutory authority for EPA's reconsideration action in this rulemaking. Section 301(a) ofthe CAA authorizes EPA "toprescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [EPA's] functions" under the CAA. Reconsidering prior rulemakings, when necessary, is part of" [EPA's] functions" under the CAA-in light ofEPA's inherent authority as recognized under the case lawto do so-and as aresult, CAA section 301(a) confers authority
upon EPA to undertake this rulemaking.

EPA finds further support for its authority tonarrow its approvals in APA section 553(e), which requires EPA
to give interested persons "the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal ofa rule," and CAA section 307(b)(1), which expressly contemplates that persons may file a petition for reconsideration under certain circumstances (at the same time that a rule is underjudicial review). These authorizations for other persons to petition EPA to amend or repeal arule suggest thatEPA has inherent authority,

on its own, to issue such amendment or repeal. This isbecause EPA maygrant

a petition from another person for an amendment to or repeal of arule only ifjustified under the CAA, andifsuch

an amendment or repeal isjustified under the CAA, then EPA should be considered as having inherent authority
to initiate theprocess on its own, even without a petition from another person.

EPA recently usedits authority to reconsider prior actions and limitits prior approval ofa SIP in connection with California conformity SIPs. See,
e.g., 68 FR 15720, 15723 (discussing prior action taken to limitapprovals); 67 FR 69139 (taking final action to amend prior approvals to limittheir duration); 67 FR 46618 (proposingto amend prior approvals to limittheir duration, based

on CAA sections 110(k) and 301(a)). EPA had previously approved SIPs with emissions budgets based on a mobile

source model that was current atthe time ofEPA's approval. Later, EPA updated the mobile source model. But,

even though the model hadbeen updated, emissions budgets would continue to be based onthe older, previously approved model in the SIPs, rather than the updated model. To rectify this problem, EPA conducted a rulemaking thatrevised the previous SIP approvals so that the approvals of the emissions budgets would expire early, when the new ones were submitted by states and found adequate, rather than when a SIP revision was approved. This helped California more quickly adjust its regulations to incorporate the newer model. In this rule, EPA is using its authority to reconsider and narrow itsprior approval of SIPs generally in the same manner as it did in connection with California conformity SIPs.

V. Comments and Responses

In this section, we provide responses to comments we received onthe proposed Tailoring Rule on narrowing EPA's approval of some SIPs. Several industry commenters (4095, 4106, 4118, 4691, 4870, 5083, 5058, 5131, 5133, 5137, 5140, 5179, 5181, 5278, 5317, 5713, 6414, 16411) and state commenters (2729, 4019, 4866, 4989, 5039, 5084) object to our proposal to

narrow our approval ofpreviously fully approved SIPs. One industry commenter (4298) supports our proposal, though would like EPA to take additional actions as well. An environmental
commenter (5306) alsobelieves that EPA should accompany its proposed actions with a SIP call.

A. Comments RegardingtheLegal Mechanism forthe CurrentAction
Commenters argued that neitherCAA section 110(k)(6) error correction authority norEPA's general authority under CAA 301(a) and APA 553(e) support the action EPA nowtakes. The arguments opposing both legal mechanisms for this rule include the following:

e The EPA's CAA section 110(k)(6) justification is flawed because section 110(k)(6) authority is limited to the correction oftechnical or clerical errors made in a SIP approval and does not allow any unilateral revisionby EPA of substantive provisions or any changes to the nature or terms ofa SIP thatEPA has approved in thepast. (2797, 4019, 4866, 4870, 4989, 5039, 5083, 5133, 5131, 5140, 5179, 5181, 5279, 5317, 6414)

e The type ofaction EPA wishes to undertake can only be taken through a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) ofthe CAA, although that sectionis not applicable in this situationbecause SIPs that incorporate the CAA applicability thresholds are not inadequate to "comply with any requirement ofthe Act." (4106,4691, 4870, 5058, 5140, 5181, 5278, 5317, 6414)

e The EPA's retroactive limitation on its prior approval ofthe SIPs is not being done to correct amistake-even EPA does not claim its approvals were in error at the time it promulgated them. Rather, the Agency is trying to change the SIPs now to avoid substantive and timing problems ithas created by its

own deliberate actions. (4870, 5058, 5131, 5140, 5181, 5278, 5317, 6414)

e The EPA is not proposing to correct any "error" "in the same manner" as it made its approval. The proposed Tailoring Rule in effect proposes a blanket narrowing on all past approvals; EPA is not issuing an individualized

new proposed approval (ordisapproval) action for each SIP that hadbeen the subject ofan individual EPA notice-andcomment SIP approval proceeding. A SIP call is the proper procedure to address any alleged inadequacies in
state resources. (2797, 4989, 5181, 5317)

e In ConcernedCitizensofBridesburg

v. EPA, 836 F.2d 777 (3d Cir. 1987), the
court invalidated EPA's attempt to rescind approval ofa SIP revision that EPA had approved 13years earlier on grounds that EPA's original approval

was in error. The Court explained that in fact the SIP approval was no longer consistent with EPA policy due to an intervening change in thatpolicy, and that the SIP approval was not an inadvertent mistake thatwouldjustify a unilateral change in disregard of procedural requirements for SIP revisions. Some commenters state that in order to be a mistake under Bridesburg,the original SIP approval
must have been contrary to agency policy at the time ofthe SIP approval. One commenter also cited Detroit Edison Co.v. EPA,496 F.2d 244, 248- 49 (6th Cir. 1974) in support ofits argument that a substantive change to a SIP is a change in policy rather than a correction ofan inadvertentmistake, and EPA cannot implement such a policy change in a SIP unilaterally (a proposed clarification by EPA ofa SIP several months after promulgation was not in fact a clarification but a revision because it effected substantive change). (4870, 5080, 5140, 5181, 5278, 5317)

e The EPA's invocation ofsection 110(k)(6) establishes a troubling precedent thatundermines the role of
states under the CAA. The EPA's approach is unguidedby any standards, criteria, or precedent. States and regulated sources would no longer have confidence that they could rely on approved SIPs, safe from EPA's revision ofthose SIPs whenever the Agency decides-on any grounds it chooses or

no grounds at all-that its prior approval had been an "error." Under this interpretation ofsection 110(k)(6), EPA could dispense entirely with SIP calls under section 110(k)(5) and the states' role in SIP revisions, which was clearly
not what Congress had inmind when it enacted section 110(k). The EPA's approach seriously undermines the carefully crafted federal-state 

### 82545

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82545 2010

### 82546 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

partnership the CAA creates, which assigns states the primary role in designing SIPs, while giving EPA a more limited, reviewing role. (4870, 5039, 5140, 5181,5278, 5317)

e The EPAhas overstated its authority under CAA section 301(a). The District ofColumbia Circuit (DC Circuit) has observed that CAA section 301(a)(1) "does not provide the Administrator with carte blanche authority topromulgate any rules, on any matter relating tothe CAA, in any

manner that the Administrator wishes." Where the CAA includes express provisions-such as section 110(k)(5) (the SIP call provision)-EPA is required to follow those provisions. If there was a mistake inprior SIP approvals as EPA contends, section 110(k)(5) is EPA's sole and exclusive mechanism for seeking to correct a SIP that hasbeen determined to be inadequate. (4019, 4866, 4870, 5058, 5083, 5131,5140, 5181,5278, 5317, 5714)

e The EPA's invocation of5U.S.C. 553(e)is legally indefensible. The EPA has mentioned no outstanding petition for EPA to revisit itsPSD SIP approvals,

so section 553(e) appears tobe inapposite. In addition, CAA section 307(d)(1)(B) and the penultimate
sentence ofsection 307(d)(1) expressly
state thatthe provisions ofsection 553 do not apply to "the promulgation or revision ofan implementation planby the Administrator"under CAA section 110(c), which, in practical effect, is the action EPA proposes here. Even where section 553(e) applies, it merely directs agencies to allow parties to seek revisions ofrules; it plainly does not permit agencies to disregard procedural requirements-whether under the APA

or under organic statutes such as the CAA-that agencies must follow in effecting any such revisions. (5317, 5714)

As previously discussed, EPA's error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) and, in the alternative, CAA section 301, read in light ofEPA's general authority to reconsider its actions, support the action EPA now takes tonarrow its prior approval of

some states' SIPs. The SIP call process is a distinct and separate authority that Congress has given to EPA for use when EPA determines that a current SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain compliance with the CAA requirements. This process is ameans for EPA to require state action. See, e.g., SierraClubv. GeorgiaPowerCompany, 443 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11thCir. 2006) (describing the SIP call process generally as a means to state action). Congress explicitly laid out EPA's error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6), as ameans for EPA to unilaterally reconsider its own prior actions without using a SIP call.EPA's general reconsideration authority also applies toEPA's reconsideration ofits

own actions. Sections 110(k)(5) and (6) ofthe CAA

are intended to address different types ofproblems with SIPs. Section 110(k)(6) targets "error[s]" thatEPA made atthe time it approved the SIP. Thus, EPA may rely on CAA section 110(k)(6) when EPA's own action-e.g., its original approval ofa state's SIP-is

erroneous. In contrast, section 110(k)(5) targets "substantial [ ]inadequa[cies]" that prevent the SIP's compliance with CAA requirements and that exist in the SIP at the time ofthe SIP call regardless ofwhen the substantial inadequacy first

arose. Thus, a SIP whose approval was appropriate at the time but later may be shown to contain substantial inadequacies couldbe amended by the
state using a SIP call underCAA section 100(k)(5), but could not be corrected by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(6).

Even so, many circumstances may arise where either a CAA section 110(k)(6) correction or a section 110(k)(5) SIP call couldbe appropriate. These are situations in which EPA erred in approving a SIP because the SIP was flawed, and that flawconstitutes a substantial inadequacy thatprevents the SIP's compliance with a CAA requirement. Under these circumstances, EPA may choose between CAA section 110(k)(6) or section 110(k)(5), and nothing in either ofthose provisions precludes EPA from choosing touse the other one inthe case ofan overlap. Section 110(k)(6) ofthe CAA provides that "[w]henever the Administrator determines that [a specified action] was in error, the Administrator may * * * revise such action* * *."This provision grants discretion to the Administrator to make the indicated determination (including the timing ofthe determination) and then grants the Administrator the discretion ("may") to revise the action. No other provision in CAA section 110(k)(6), and none in section 110(k)(5), precludes that discretion in a situation in which the Administrator could have instead relied on section 110(k)(5). By the same token, CAA section 110(k)(5) provides that "[w]henever the Administrator finds thatthe applicable implementation plan for any area is substantially inadequate * * * to * * * comply with any requirement of [the CAA], the Administrator shall require [a SIP revision]." This provision also grants discretion tothe Administrator to make the indicated finding (including the timing of the finding) that would trigger the requirement for a SIP revision. No other provision in CAA section 110(k)(5) mandates thatthe Administrator make the finding (and thereby trigger the requirement for a SIP revision) even ifthe Administrator could otherwise rely on section 110(k)(6). SeealsoNew York Public InterestResearchGroupv. Whitman, 321 F.3d 316, 330-31 (2dCir. 2003) (finding that opening phrase "Whenever the Administrator makes a determination" in CAA section 502(i)(1) grants EPA "discretion whether to make

a determination"); HerMajestythe QueeninRightofOntario v. U.S.E.P.A., 912 F.2d 1525, 1533 (DCCir. 1990) (finding "whenever"in CAA section 115(a) "impl[ied] a degree ofdiscretion" in whether EPAhad to make an endangerment finding). Indeed, if,as commenters suggest, section 110(k)(5)

were viewed as predominating over section 110(k)(6), then there would be very few circumstances under which section 110(k)(6) wouldbe available because in many instances, the type of

error thatthe Administrator would see fit to correct under section 110(k)(6) would be one thatwould cause a SIP to be "substantially inadequate" to meet CAA requirements. Such anarrow role for section 110(k)(6) isinconsistent with its plain language, which, again, authorizes itsusage "whenever" the Administrator "determines" thatEPA's action was in "error." As previously noted, the term "error" shouldbe defined broadly to include any unintentional mistake, and the other quoted terms inherently provide discretion.

In addition to Congress's explicit grant oferror correction authority, the DC Circuit recently affirmed EPA's inherent authority to reconsider its own actions in NewJerseyv.EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008), where it explained that an agency normally can change its position and reverse aprior decision. However, the Court added that "when Congress has provided a mechanism capable ofrectifying mistaken actions * * * itis not reasonable to infer authority toreconsider agency action." NewJersey,517 F.3d at 583. In that case, the Court did find that Congress had,in fact, limited EPA's ability to remove

sources from the list ofHAP source categories, once listed, by requiring EPA
to follow the specific delisting process atCAA section 112(c)(9).

In the present case, EPAbelieves that it has the general authority under the CAA toreconsider its previous actions. Congress has also added the specific provision CAA section 110(k)(6), which authorizes correction oferrors. EPA

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82546 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

believes that this error correction provision authorizes this action. If section 110(k)(6) has the breadth that EPA believes ithas, then itmay take the place ofEPA's inherent authority to reconsider prior erroneous actions. If section 110(k)(6) has a more limited breadth and does not apply to this action, then EPA continues to have inherent authority to make corrections beyond what section 110(k)(6) authorizes, including this action.

As previously discussed, EPA finds support for its general authority to reconsider under CAA section 301(a). However, we are notrelying on CAA section 301(a) as carte blanche authority
to promulgate any rules; rather, we are relying on CAA section 301(a) because this action carries out EPA's functions,
to reconsider its action under CAA section 110 in approving SIP revisions,

as authorized under the case law previously cited. Likewise, EPA finds

some support for its authority in APA section 553(e). However, EPA is not relying on APA section 553(e) as direct authority for this action, under which EPA is correcting an error.Rather, EPA considers APA section 553(e) to support the proposition

- also supported by

case law-that EPA has inherent authority to correct an error. Similarly
to the APA, CAA section 307(b)(1), which contemplates petitions for reconsideration by EPA of actions taken

on SIP submissions, supports the proposition thatEPA has inherent authority toreconsider prior decisions that were in error.

Commenters' concerns thatEPA's approach to this rule seriously undermines the CAA federal-state partnership and the primary role given the states in the SIP development
process are unfounded. This rule simply
corrects an error in accordance with CAA section 110(k)(6); the primary role ofstates and the nature ofthe federalstate partnership certainly remains intact. States remain the developers and drafters ofthe SIPs; EPA remains the arbiter ofwhether the submitted SIP provisions meet necessary requirements, andthus shouldbe part ofthe SIP. This federal-state partnership cannot preclude EPA from correcting errors in its own SIP approvals, and the partnership is not threatened by such

error corrections. In addition, in accordance with CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA exercises its authority under this provision through notice and comment rulemaking, in which states have the opportunity to comment in order to shape the outcome. Historically, EPA has exercised its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) very sparingly and judiciously. In the current case, EPAhas taken this action after close communication with the states.

As previously discussed, the SIPs addressed here each contained a mismatch between their PSD applicability provisions and their state

assurances ofadequate resources. EPA erred in approving those SIPs. Since this

error recentlybecame apparent, EPA is

now promptly taking steps to correct the

error in a manner itdeems appropriate. We find thatuse ofour CAA section 110(k)(6) authority is appropriate because we are able to rectify the problem with the SIP without the need for state action, and because this approach provides the most efficient

means for making the correction. Importantly, however, EPA is notbasing its error correction on a change in its approach to an old policy, but rather on

a flaw in the SIP that existed at the time ofEPA's action onthe SIP but which has only recentlybecome apparent. Section 110(k)(6) ofthe CAA is available to correct any error in a SIP; EPA disagrees with the commenters who state that thisprovision may only be used for technical or clerical errors. As previously discussed, the text of CAA section 110(k)(6) applies the provision broadly to any mistake, and does not limitthe provision's applicability to only technical or clerical errors. Congress's passage of CAA section 110(k)(6) in 1990in fact indicated Congress's intentto reinforce EPA's broad authority tounilaterally
correct any errors in SIP approvals, coming as it did after the Third Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation oferror correction authority in Concerned CitizensofBridesburg v. U.S.EPA,836 F.2d 777 (1987).

Conversely, commenters' concerns that this rule sets atroubling precedent because it isunguided by any standards, criteria or precedent are unfounded. This rule isbased on a flawin the relevant SIPs and EPA's error in approving the SIPs with thatflaw. EPA's application ofCAA section 110(k)(6) is, by the terms ofthat provision, limited
to an error correction, and this action does not gobeyond thatlimit.

EPA conducted notice and comment

on the approval-narrowing for each relevant SIP. This notice and comment process, followed by the issuance ofthe final rule, corrects the errors in these SIPs in the same manner thatEPA previously approved the SIPs. EPA also made an individualized determination regarding each affected SIP that the SIP contains a mismatchbetween itsPSD applicability and state assurances provisions. For each SIP, this mismatch has been made evident, as previously discussed, by (i) EPA'sfinding in the Tailoring Rule that under their current SIPs, the states would be required to process an enormous number of PSD permits for small GHG-emitting sources, which would overwhelm state
resources; and (ii)the fact thatno state has objected tothis finding and asserted that itdoes have adequate resources, or that itpreviously assured EPA itwould have adequate resources, for this
purpose.

EPA's narrowing ofapproval amounts to a revision to the federal SIP, but that is inherent in its abilityto correct its SIP actionunder CAA section 110(k)(6). EPA is not changing the state law component ofthe SIP, which remains fully state enforceable.

B. Comments onPotentialTriggeringof Anti-BackslidingProvisions

Some commenters expressed concern that anti-backsliding provisions would prevent revision of SIPs to increase the significance threshold for GHG emissions. Commenters were concerned that theEPA's approach to ask states to quickly revise their SIPs to comport with the increased significance thresholds is likelyto be challenged by activist groups citing the CAA's antibacksliding provisions, which limit relaxation in certain rules. Under EPA's interpretation ofPSD applicability, once the LDVR requires PSD to apply to GHGs, the existing thresholds contained in SIPs couldbe alleged by activist groups tobecome binding on GHGs under the anti-backsliding arguments that these groups are currently advancing in various court cases. Thus,

evenifa state wanted to revise its regulations similarly to the federal Tailoring Rule and thereby relax the threshold, the anti-backsliding provision might prevent it. (5140, 5181, 5278). One commenter was also concerned more generally that antibacksliding rules prevent EPA from "adjust[ing] greenhouse gas levels" under the Tailoring Rule. (5713).

None ofthese comments raised objections to this action narrowing EPA's prior approval of SIPs. Thus,it is
not necessary to address these
comments here. However, to the extent the concern expressed inthese
comments could have been raised by changes to SIPs resultingfrom EPA's narrowing ofitsprior approval, we choose to address the comments here in the interest ofgreater responsiveness.

While many commenters did not clarify which CAA provisions they considered "anti-backsliding provisions", they mostlikely meant to refer to CAA sections 110(1), 110(n)(1),

or 193. However, the current rule does
not violate any ofthese provisions. 

### 82547

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82547 2010

### 82548 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

Under CAA section 193, EPA may onlymodify any "control requirement" applicable to a nonattainment area that

was required or in effect prior to November 15, 1990 if"themodification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions ofsuch air pollutant." These provisions of section 193 apply to controls for pollutants for which an area is designated nonattainment. No area of the country is designated nonattainment for GHGs. This rule prevents certain

sources or modification projects that are not currently subject to PSD requirements from becoming subject to PSD due to their emissions ofGHGs on January 2, 2010 when GHGs will become "subject to regulation" for
purposes ofthe PSD program. GHGs are not currently subject to regulation under the PSD program. Furthermore, the PSD program does not require emission offsets for new or modified major
sources, and EPA does not consider the PSD program to achieve "emissions reductions" for purposes ofsection 193. Rather, the program merely limits future emissions growth. Thus, section 193 would not limit alteration ofa PSD program because any revised program would meet the statutory test.Therefore, the current rule does not violate CAA section 193.

CAA section 110(1) provides thatEPA shall not approve a SIP revision "ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (asdefined in [CAA section 171]), orany other applicable requirement ofthis chapter." CAA section 171 defines "reasonable further progress" as "such annual incremental reductions in emissions ofthe relevant air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date." The current rule does not approve a SIP revision. The
current rule also wouldnot interfere with attainment ofany NAAQS, or with any other requirement ofthe CAA.

CAA section 110(n)(1) states that a provision that was in a SIP prior to November 15, 1990 may onlybe changed ifitis "approved or promulgated by [EPA] pursuant to this chapter." The current rule isbeing approved by EPA pursuant to this chapter. The procedure ofapproval is pursuant to the CAA, and the rule's substance does notviolate CAA section 110(1) or any other CAA provision.

CAA section 172(e), which was cited specifically by one commenter, applies
to EPA action to "relax a [NAAQS] after November 15, 1990." Since GHGs are not a NAAQS pollutant and thisrule does not change any NAAQS standard, this provision is not applicable to the
current rule.

C. Commentson Persisting Practical DifficultiesattheStateLevel

EPA received comments that raised

concern thatEPA is ignoring the fact that itwill take timefor the states to amend their laws and regulations to accommodate the revised applicability thresholds. Commenters expressed

concern thatit willbe oflittle help for EPA to quickly amend the relevant SIPs because states will still be bound to implement their underlying programs until corrections can be made. For
sources, this means no relieffrom the statutory thresholds for a lengthy time after GHGs become regulated. (4019, 4095, 4866, 5080, 5083, 5084, 5131, 5133, 5140, 5179, 5278, 5317, 16411)

After this action is published and becomes effective, federal law will not require affected states to issue PSD permits for GHGs emitted at levels below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Thus, sources in these states emitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rule thresholds will not be federally required
to obtain a PSD permit for those emissions.

No actionby EPA can amend state law requirements, or relieve emitters of responsibilities under state law. However, most states affected by this rule have already begun theprocess of amending their state regulations to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. As previously noted, almost all states are ontrack to have changed their state lawto incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds byJanuary 2, 2011 orvery shortly thereafter. EPA encourages states to continue to pursue this process. Once states change their
state lawto incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, then both the state law and federal lawpermitting requirements will be resolved. States can then process their revised state laws into SIP revisions and submit them for approval. In the proposed GHGPSD SIP Call preamble, EPA included recommendations for some states to streamline their SIP development
processes; those recommendations could be used here. In the same proposal, EPA encouraged states to submit their SIP revisions for parallel processing, and thereby speed EPA approval. EPA recognizes thatit may take some months to receive EPA approval ofthe SIP revision, but during this time, the State and Federal law will already each havebeen changed. This rule thus helps ensure that sources emitting GHGs atbelow-Tailoring Rule levels will have relieffromGHG permitting requirements as early as possible.

D. Comments onPreferred Alternative Coursesof Action

EPA received comments advocating alternate courses ofaction to address SIPs with the 100/250 tpy thresholds for GHGs. These comments include the following:

* IfEPA wishes to pursue its current regulatory strategy, itcould amend the minimum PSD SIP elements in40 CFR 51.166 and allow states to develop and submit SIP revisions in accordance with those new provisions. (5182, 5317)

* The EPA should exercise all available legal authority to ensure that SIPs come into conformity with the Tailoring Rule. Instead oftakingno action other than to limit approval of SIPs, EPA should mandate or strongly
encourage states to revise theirPSD rules to reflect the higherthresholds. This could be accomplished through an expedited SIP call orby conditioning section 105 grant funding on appropriate revisions tothe PSDrules in SIP-approved states. (4691)

* An industry commenter (4298) supports EPA's efforts to narrow or conform its prior approvals through CAA sections 301(a)(1) and 110(k)(6) with respect to applicability thresholds. However, the commenter believes EPA should take affirmative steps to ensure that states immediately either revise their regulations to raise existing lower thresholds or demonstrate thatthey have adequate resources and funding to manage their programs utilizing those existing lower thresholds. The
commenter also believes that EPA should not finalize any action that would trigger GHG permitting until each
state program has been amended (4298).

* An environmental group commenter (5306)believes thatEPA and the states should collaborate on an expeditious, smooth transition in carrying out obligations to address GHGs under the PSD programs. The
commenter believes itis reasonable for EPA to call for a SIP revision under section 110(k)(5) with an expeditious deadline for states to submit corrective plan revisions. Further, according to the commenter, EPA can ease state adoption ofPSD permit program revisions and expedite EPA's own review and approval ofthe states' adjustments by adopting model guidelines to help inform state rulemaking. The
commenter recommends thatEPA should promptly start theprocess with the aim to complete itbythe end of 2010.

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82548 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

As previously noted, EPA is strongly encouraging states to amend their SIP requirements to conform tothe PSD thresholds established in the final Tailoring Rule, and this ruleis consistent with such action. In fact, many states have already begun the
process ofamending state regulations and submitting those changes to EPA for approval. EPA is working closely with
many states to help complete this
process as expeditiously as possible. This close interaction obviates the need for guidelines on how states might amend their laws. EPA's narrowing of

our prior approval ofsome SIPs is intended to assure that at least the federal law component ofthese SIPs will, in essence, reflect the Tailoring Rule thresholds, since not all states whose SIPs will cover GHGs on January 2, 2011 willbe able to amend their SIP thresholds by that date.

EPA does not feel that a SIP call would provide any additional benefit

over the current action. Since the affected states are already making efforts
to change their state laws and amend their SIPs, and have already informed EPA about their plans to make these changes in a time-effective manner, a SIP call would not spur any action that is not already occurring.

Neither this action nor the Tailoring Rule triggered GHGpermitting for any state. The Light Duty Vehicle Rule, in conjunction with the operation ofthe Clean Air Act, has already triggered the applicability ofPSD to GHG emitting

sources.
VI. Effective Date

This rule isbeing issuedunder CAA §307(d)(1)(V). CAA section 307(d) specifies thatrules issued under its provisions are not subject to APA section 553. Thus, the 30-day delay in effective date from the date of signature required under the APA does not apply. In addition, even ifAPA section 553

were to apply, APA section 553(d) provides an exception for any action that grants or recognizes an exemption

orrelieves a restriction. Since the effect ofthis rule willbe to relieve many small

sources (and permitting authorities) from certain PSD obligations, EPA believes that an immediate effective date is consistent with the purposes under APA section 553(d). EPA believes there isgood cause for an immediate effective date due to the regulatory confusion thatwould result ifstates

were federally required to implement PSD GHG permitting at onlythe statutory thresholds starting onJanuary 2, 2010. In addition, since this is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, the 60-day delay in effective date required for major rules under the CRA does not apply. This rule is thus effective immediately.

VII. Statutoryand Executive Orders

A. Executive Order12866-Regulatory PlanningandReview

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significantregulatory action" because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submittedthis action to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork ReductionAct
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. Instead, this action will significantly reduce
costs incurred by sources and permitting authorities relative to the
costs that wouldbe incurredifEPA did
not revise this rule. In the final Tailoring Rule, EPA stated thatbased on its GHGthreshold data analysis, it estimated that over 80,000 new and modified facilities per year, nationally, would be subject to PSD reviewbased

on applying a GHG emissions threshold of 100/250 tpy using a CO 2 e metric. This

was compared with the 280 PSD permits currently issued peryear. Thus, without the final Tailoring Rule, the administrative burden for permitting GHG emissions would increase 280- fold, an unmanageable increase. The
current action takes further steps to implement the burden-reduction implemented by the final Tailoring Rule.

In addition, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations for PSD (see,e.g., 40 CFR 52.21) under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFRpart 9.

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes ofassessing the impacts ofthis final action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1)A small business that is a small industrial entity

as defined in the U.S. SBA size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201); (2)a small governmental jurisdiction thatis a government ofacity, county, town, school district, or special district with a population ofless than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise thatis independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts ofthis final rule on small entities, Icertify thatthis final action will not have a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact ofconcern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses isto identify and address regulatory alternatives which "minimize any significant economic impact ofthe * * * rule on small entities." 5U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect

on all ofthe small entities subject to the rule.

We have therefore concluded thatthis final rule will relieve the federal regulatory burden for mostaffected small entities associated with the major PSD permit programs for new or modified major sources that emit GHGs, including smallbusinesses, in the affected states. This isbecause this rule

narrows its approval ofSIPs in affected
states so as to raise the approved PSD applicability thresholds for sources that emitGHGs. As a result, the program changes provided in this rule are not expected to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of$100 million or more for state, local, andtribal governments, inthe aggregate,

orthe private sector in any 1year.No
state will have an increased burden as

aresult ofthis rule; any burden related
to amending state SIPs to incorporate different GHG emissions thresholds resulted from the final Tailoring Rule,
not the current rule. Thus,this rule is
not subject tothe requirements of sections 202 or 205 of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

### 82549

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82549 2010

### 82550 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

This rule is also not subject tothe requirements of section 203 ofUMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This rule is expected to result in cost savings and an administrative burden reduction for allpermitting authorities and permittees in the affected states, including small governments.

E.Executive Order13132-Federalism

This action does not havefederalism implications. It will nothave substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This finalrule will ultimately simplify and reduce the burden onstate and local agencies associated with implementing the PSD permit program, by ensuring that,in affected states, a source whose GHG emissions are below the final Tailoring Rule thresholds will not haveto obtain

aPSD permit under federal law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.

In the spirit ofExecutive Order 13132, and consistent withEPA policyto promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comments on the proposed rule from state and local officials. EPA has also consulted with the National Association ofClean Air Agencies and representatives from some individual states in developing this rule.

F.Executive Order13175-Consultation andCoordinationWithIndian Governments

Subject to Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and thatis not required by statute, unlessthe federal government provides the funds necessary topay the direct compliance
costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.

EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal government,

nor preempt tribal law. There are no tribal authorities currently issuing major NSR permits; however, this may change in the future.

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing the final Tailoring Rule regulation, which the current rule helps to implement, to allow them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. Prior
to publishing theproposed Tailoring Rule, EPA published an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking (ANPR)that included GHGtailoring options for regulating GHGs under the CAA. (73 FR 44354, July 30, 2008). As a result ofthe ANPR, EPAreceived several comments from tribal officials on differing GHG tailoring options presented in the ANPR which were considered in the proposed Tailoring Rule and final Tailoring Rule. Additionally, EPA also specifically solicited comment from tribal officials

on the proposed Tailoring Rule (74 FR 55292, October 27, 2009) in which the actions which EPA now takes were first proposed.
G. Executive Order13045-Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth andSafetyRisks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such thatthe analysis required under section 5-501 ofthe Executive 492 Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order13211-Actions ThatSignificantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,or Use

This action is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy. Further,

we have concluded thatthis rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because this action would not create any

new requirements for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.

L NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct
Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 ("NTTAA"), PublicLaw 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, andbusiness practices) that are developed or adopted byvoluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

J.Executive Order12898-Federal Actions ToAddressEnvironmental JusticeinMinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,to make environmental justice part oftheir mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheirprograms, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has concluded that itis not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from this rule. This ruleis necessary in order to allow for the continued implementation ofpermitting requirements established in the CAA. Specifically, without this rule, the affected states' CAA PSDpermitting
programs would become overwhelmed andunmanageable by theuntenable number ofGHG sources that would become newly subject to them. This would result in severe impairment of the functioning ofthese programs with potentially adverse human health and environmental effects nationwide. Under this rule and the findings under the final Tailoring Rule, EPA is ensuring that the affected states' CAA permitting
programs continue to operate by narrowing their applicability to the maximum number of sources the
programs can possibly handle. This approach is consistent with congressional intent as itphases in applicability, starting with the largest

sources initially, and then other sources

over time, so as notto overwhelm state permitting programs. Bydoing so, this rule allows for the maximum degree of environmental protection possible while providing regulatory relieffor the unmanageable burden that would otherwise exist. Therefore, we believe it is not practicable toidentify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82550 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

income populations in the United States under this final rule, though we do believe that this rulewill ensure that
states can continue to issue PSDpermits
to significant sources ofairpollution.

K. Congressional ReviewAct
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by SBREFA, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House ofthe Congress andto the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General of the United Statesprior to publication ofthe rule in the FederalRegister. A majorrule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective December 30, 2010.

L. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA specifies which Federal Courts ofAppeal have jurisdiction to hear petitions for review ofwhich final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part,that petitions for review mustbe filed in the Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of"nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken,by the Administrator," or (ii) when such action is locally orregionally applicable, if"such action isbased on a determination ofnationwide scope or effect and ifin taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action isbased on such a determination."

This rule narrowing EPA's previous approvals of SIPs in 24 states to correct

a flaw in those SIPs is "nationally applicable" within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). The circumstances that have ledto this rulemaking are national in scope and are substantially the same for each affected state. They include EPA's promulgation of nationally applicable GHG requirements that, in conjunction with the operation ofthe CAA PSD provisions, have resulted in GHG-emitting sources becoming subject to PSD. Moreover, in this rule, EPA is applying uniform principles for each affected state in this rule. Atthe core ofthis rulemaking is EPA's recognition thatwhen it approved each ofthe affected SIPs' PSD applicability provisions, itdid so in the face ofa mismatch-common to each SIP-between thebreadth ofthose provisions and the scope ofthe resource

assurances the states provided. EPA is

now addressing this flaw in numerous SIPs across the country throughthe CAA section 110(k)(6) error correction provisions. EPA's analytical approach for each SIP is the same, its determination that each SIP was flawed and therefore thatEPA erredin its approval ofeach SIP is the same, and EPA's remedial action ofrescinding its previous approval ofpart ofthe SIP and thereby narrowing its approval ofthe SIP is the same. This rulemaking action is supported by a single administrative record, and does not involve factual questions unique to the different affected states. In addition, this rule applies tomultiple States in numerous judicial circuits across the country.

For similar reasons, this rule isbased

on determinations of nationwide scope

or effect. EPAuses a uniform legal interpretation in all the affected States

across the country; for the same reasons in each case, EPA is determining that each SIP was flawed and thatEPA therefore erred in approving it. Similarly, EPA is determining that the appropriate remedial action isto rescind its approval in part and thereby narrow its approval, and this too is the same for each state. Because the states are spread

across the nation, each ofthese determinations is nationwide in scope
or effect. Moreover, EPA is making these determinations andpromulgating this action within the context ofnationwide rulemakings and interpretation ofthe applicable CAAprovisions, as noted above.

Thus, any petitions forjudicialreview ofthis action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit byFebruary 28, 2011. Any suchjudicial review is limited to only those objections that are raised withreasonable specificity in timely comments. Filing a petitionfor reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule

or action. Under section 307(b)(2) ofthe Act, the requirements ofthis final action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements. Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(V) ofthe Act,the Administrator determines thatthis action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides thatthe provisions ofsection 307(d) applyto "suchother actions as the Administrator may determine." This action finalizes elements ofaprevious proposed action-the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Proposed Rule (74 FR 55292, October 27, 2009).

VIII. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action is providedby sections 101, 110, and 301 ofthe CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410, and 7601). This action is also subject to section 307(d) ofthe CAA (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

Listof Subjects in40 CFRPart52

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases, Hydrofluorocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur hexafluoride.

Dated: December 23, 2010. Lisa P.Jackson, Administrator. * Forthereasons statedinthepreamble, title 40, chapter Iofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citationfor part52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Subpart B-Alabama

* 2.Section 52.53 isrevised to read as follows:
§52.53 Approval Status.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Alabama's plans for the attainment and maintenance ofthe national standards under section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plans satisfy allrequirements ofPart D, Title I, ofthe CleanAir Act as amended in 1977. In addition, continued satisfaction ofthe requirements ofPart D for the ozone portion ofthe SIP depends on the adoption and submittal ofRACT requirements byJuly 1, 1980 for the

sources covered byCTGs issued between January 1978 andJanuary 1979 and adoption and submittal by each subsequent January ofadditional RACT requirements for sources covered by CTGs issued by the previous January. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas 82551

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82551 201082552 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in EPA-approved Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management (ADEM) Rules 335-3-14- .04(1)(d) thru (i) and 335-3-14- .04(2)(u)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in EPA-approved Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Rules 335-3-14- .04(2)(c) and 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant"is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Rules 335-3-14-.04(2)(w).
Subpart F-California

* 3.Section 52.223 is amendedby adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h)to read as follows:
§52.223 Approval status.

(f)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District's approved plan apply to stationary

sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action onthat application tothe extentthat GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

(ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in the EPA-approved North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District rules at R1-1-130(s2)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District rules at Ri-1-130(nl)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the EPA-approved North CoastUnified Air Quality Management District rules
at Ri-1-130(s2). (g)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District's approved plan apply to stationary

sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject toregulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation:

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82552 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emitor have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in the EPA-approved Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District rules atR1-1-130(s2)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District rules at Ri-1-130(nl)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2 e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the EPA-approved Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District rules at R1-1-130(s2). (h)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in Mendocino County Air Quality Management District's approved plan apply to stationary

sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject toregulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if: (i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in the EPA-approved Mendocino County Air Quality Management District rules atR1-1- 130(s2)) and a significant netemissions increase (as defined in theMendocino County Air Quality Management District rules atRi-1-130(ml) (1982)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant"is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the EPA-approved Mendocino County Air Quality Management District rules atR1-1-130(s2). Subpart G-Colorado

* 4. Section 52.323 isrevised toread as follows: 

### §52.323 Approvalstatus.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Colorado's plan for the attainment and maintenance ofthe national standards under section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that theplan satisfies all requirements ofPart D, Title 1, ofthe Clean Air Act

as amended in 1977, except as noted below. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) the term greenhouse gas shall mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)theterm tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: 82553

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82553 2010No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)the term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in paragraphs I.A.2. through I.A.3, andI.B of Part D ofColorado's Air Quality Commission's Regulation Number 3)and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in paragraphs II.A.26 and II.A.42.a ofPart D ofColorado's Air Quality Commission's Regulation Number 3)

occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shallbe calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in paragraph II.A.42.b ofPartD of Colorado's Air Quality Commission's Regulation Number 3.
Subpart L-Georgia

0 5.Section 52.572 isrevised toread as follows:
§52.572 Approvalstatus.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Georgia's plans for the attainment and maintenance ofthe national standards under section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plans satisfy allrequirements ofPart D, Title I, ofthe CleanAir Act as amended in 1977, except as noted below. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGsemitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv) (2006) and theEPA-approved Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)Rules 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)2.(I) thru (IV) (2006)) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i) (2006))

occur. 40 CFR 52.21 (2006) is presently incorporated by reference into Georgia's approved plan at EPA-approved Georgia EPD Rule 391-3-1-.02(7). For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall bebased on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSRpollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii).
Subpart P-Indiana

* 6. Section 52.773 is amendedby adding paragraph (k)toread as follows: 

### §52.773 Approvalstatus.

(k)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (k), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGsshall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (k)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (k)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the 

### 82554 Federal Register/Vol. 75,

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82554 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

procedures in [326 IAC-2-2-2(d) of Indiana's Administrative Code) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in 326 IAC-2-1, paragraphs (ii) and (ww)ofIndiana's Administrative Code) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shallbe calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in paragraph 326 IAC 2-2- 1(ww)(1)(V) ofIndiana's Administrative Code.
Subpart Q-Iowa

* 7.Section 52.822 is amended by adding paragraph (b)to read as follows:
§52.822 Approvalstatus.

(b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i)) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSRpollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii) ofthis section.
Subpart T-Louisiana

* 8. Section 52.986 is amendedby adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§52.986 Significantdeterioration ofair quality.

(c)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in Louisiana's approved plan apply to stationary

sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (c), andthe Administrator takes no action onthat application tothe extentthat GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall alsobe subject toregulation:

(i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emitor have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy C0 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy C0 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy C0 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (c)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this sectionfor each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in the EPA-approved Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC), Title 33, Part III, Chapter 5, Section 509, Subsection B) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in LAC 33:III.509.B) occur. For thepollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the EPA-approved definition of "significant" atLAC 33:111.509.B.
Subpart U-Maine

0 9. Section 52.1022 isrevised toread

as follows: 

### §52.1022 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Maine's plan, asidentified in §52.1020, for the attainment andmaintenance of the national standards under section 110 ofthe CleanAir Act.

(b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas 

### 82555

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82555 201082556 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy C0 2equivalent emissions (C0 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy C0 2e.

(iii)the term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in 06-096 1.ofChapter 100 ofMaine's Bureau ofAir Quality Control regulations) and a significant
net emissions increase (as defined in 06-096, paragraphs 89 and 144 A of Chapter 100 ofMaine's Bureau ofAir Quality Control regulations) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy C0 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant"is defined as 75,000 tpy C02e instead ofapplying the value in 06-096, paragraphs 143 and 144 D ofChapter 100 ofMaine's Bureau ofAir Quality Control regulations. 

### Subpart V-Maryland

* 10. Section 52.1073 is amendedby adding paragraph (h)to read as follows:
§52.1073 Approval status.

(h)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (h), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (h)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (h)(4)(ii)(A)ofthis sectionfor each gas to compute a tpy C0 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean that a net significant emissions increase (as defined in 40 CFR part 52.21(b)(3)(i) (2000) and the EPAapproved Maryland rules at COMAR 26.11.06.14 (state effective date 10/10/ 2001)). For thepollutant GHGs, a net emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shallbe calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii) (2000).
Subpart Z-Mississippi

* 11. Section 52.1272 isrevised toread

as follows:
§52.1272 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Mississippi's plan for the attainment and maintenance ofnational standards under section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plans satisfy allrequirements ofPart D, Title I, ofthe CleanAir Act as amended in 1977. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation," as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82556 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

this section, the pollutant GHGs shall alsobe subject toregulation:

(i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emitor have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy C0 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or hasthe potential to emit 100,000 tpy C0 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy C0 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv) (2007)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i) (2007))

occur. 40 CFR 52.21 (2007) ispresently incorporated byreference into Mississippi's plan atEPA-approved Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality Rule APC-S-5. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulatedNSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii)(2007).
Subpart AA-Missouri

* 12. Section 52.1323 is amended by adding paragraph (n)to read as follows:
§52.1323 Approval status.

(n)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation," as provided in this paragraph (n), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (n)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (n)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (n)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i)) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSRpollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii).
Subpart EE-New Hampshire

* 13. Section 52.1522 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§52.1522 Approval status.

(c)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (c), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (c)-

(i) the term greenhouse gas shall mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to 

### 82557

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82557 2010

### 82558 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this sectionfor each gas to compute a tpy CO2e.

(iii)the term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i)) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii).
Subpart GG-New Mexico

* 14. Section 52.1634 is amendedby adding paragraphs (d)and (e) to read as follows:
§52.1634 Significantdeterioration ofair quality.

(d)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in NewMexico's approved plan apply to stationary

sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject toregulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO2e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy Ctze or more. (4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (b)-

(i) theterm greenhouse gas shall mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)theterm emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in the EPA-approved New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) rules at NewMexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 20.2.74.200, Subsection D) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the EPA-approved NMED rules atNMAC 20.2.74.7, paragraphs (AK), (AV), and (AW)) occur.For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall bebased on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSRpollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the EPA-approved NMED rules at Table 2ofNMAC 20.2.74.502.

(e)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in Bernallilo County/ City ofAlbuquerque's approved plan apply to stationary sources of greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject
to regulation", asprovided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO2e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)the term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in the EPA-approved Bernallilo County/City ofAlbuquerque rules at NMAC 20.11.61.11, Subsection D) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the EPAapproved Bernanillo County/City of Albuquerque rules at NMAC 20.11.61.7, paragraphs (00), (YY), and (ZZ)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulatedNSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the EPA-approved Bernallilo County/City ofAlbuquerque rules at Table 2ofNMAC 20.11.61.27.
Subpart Il-North Carolina

* 15. Section 52.1772 is amendedby adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: §52.1772 Approval status.

(c)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82558 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (c), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (c)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this sectionfor each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean that a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3) (1996) and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) (1996)) occurs. 40 CFR 51.166 (1996) ispresently incorporated by reference into North Carolina's plan at EPA-approved North Carolina Rule 15A NCAC 02D-.544. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSRpollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(ii) (1996).
Subpart KK-Ohio

* 16. Section 52.1873 isrevised to read

as follows:
§52.1873 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions setforth in this subpart the Administrator approves Ohio's plan for the attainment and maintenance ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards under section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plan satisfies all the requirements ofPart D, Title 1ofthe Clean Air Act as amended in 1977, except as notedbelow. In addition, continued satisfaction ofthe requirements ofPart D forthe ozone portion ofthe SIP depends on the adoption and submittal ofRACT requirements byJanuary 1, 1981 for the

sources covered by CTGs between January 1978 andJanuary 1979 and adoption and submittal by each subsequent January ofadditional RACT requirements for sources covered by CTGs issued by the previous January. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emitor have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) the term greenhouse gas shall mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in 3745-31-01(III)(4) of Ohio's Administrative Code) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs 3745-31-01, paragraphs (SSS)and (LLLLL)(1) of Ohio's Administrative Code) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2e, and shall be calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulatedNSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO2e instead ofapplying the value in paragraph 3745-31- 01(LLLLL)(2) ofOhio's Administrative Code.
Subpart LL-Oklahoma

* 17. Section 52.1929 is amendedby adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§52.1929 Significantdeterioration ofair quality.

(c)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in Oklahoma's approved plan apply to stationary

sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject toregulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the 

### 82559

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82559 201082560 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) the term greenhouse gas shall mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy C0 2equivalent emissions (C0 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy C0 2e.

(iii)the term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using EPAapproved procedures in Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulation 1.4.4(b)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in the EPA-approved Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulation 1.4.4(b)(3) and (22), definitions for "net emissions increase" and "significant) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2 e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSRpollutant, and "significant" isdefined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 1.4.4(b)(22) ofthe EPA-approved definition for "significant"of Oklahoma's Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Subpart 00-Rhode Island

* 18. Section 52.2072 isrevised to read

as follows:
§52.2072 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions setforth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Rhode Island's plan, as identified in §52.2070 ofthis subpart, for the attainment andmaintenance ofthe national standards under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plan satisfies all requirements ofPart D, Title I, ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, except as notedbelow. In addition, continued satisfaction ofthe requirements ofPart D forthe ozone portion ofthe SIP depends on the adoption and submittal ofRACT requirements byJanuary 1, 1981 for the

sources covered by CTGs issued between January 1978 andJanuary 1979 and adoption and submittal by each subsequent January as additional RACT requirements for sources covered by CTGs issued by the previous January. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO2e; or (ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) the term greenhouse gas shall mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy C0 2equivalent emissions (C0 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy C0 2e.

(iii)the term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in 9.1.1 ofRhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 9) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in 9.1.24 and 9.1.34 of Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 9) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy C0 2 e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy C0 2e instead ofapplying the value for "any otherpollutant" in 9.1.34 ofRhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 9.
Subpart PP-South Carolina

* 19. Section 52.2122 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§52.2122 Approval status.

(c)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (c), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation."

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82560 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and alsowill emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO2e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (c)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(A) of this sectionfor each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards (SouthCarolina Regulations) 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, paragraph (a)(2)(iv)) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards (South Carolina Regulations) 61-62.5, Standard No. 7,paragraphs (b)(34) and (b)(49)(i))

occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shallbe calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant"is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in South Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards (SouthCarolina Regulations) 61-62.5, Standard No. 7,paragraph (b)(49)(ii).
Subpart QQ-South Dakota

* 20. Section 52.2172 isrevised to read

as follows:
§52.2172 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions setforth in this subpart, the Administrator approves South Dakota's plan as meeting the requirements of section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977. Furthermore, the Administrator finds that the plan satisfies allrequirements ofPart D ofthe CleanAir Act, as amended in 1977. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

(ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i)) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO 2 e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii).
Subpart RR-Tennessee

* 21. Section 52.2222 is amended by adding paragraph (d)to read as follows:
§52.2222 Approval status.

(d)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (d), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and,

(3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: 

### 82561

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82561 201082562 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emitor have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (d)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis sectionfor each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation 1200-03-09- .01(4)(c)(4) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation 1200-03-09-.01, paragraphs (4)(b)(4) and (4)(b)(24)(i)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation 1200-03-09-.01, paragraph (4)(b)(24)(ii).
SubpartTT-Utah

* 22. Section 52.2323 isrevised toread

as follows:
§52.2323 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Utah's plan as meeting the requirements ofsection 110 ofthe Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. Furthermore, the Administrator finds thatthe plan satisfies all requirements ofPart D, Title 1,ofthe Clean Air Act as amended in 1977, except as notedbelow.

(b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)theterm emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in paragraphs 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and (b)(23)(i)) occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shallbe based on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ii).
Subpart UU-Vermont

* 23. Section 52.2372 isrevised toread

as follows: 

### §52.2372 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Vermont's plan as identified in §52.2370 for the attainment and maintenance ofthe national standards under section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plans satisfy allrequirements ofPart D, Title I, ofthe CleanAir Act, as amended in 1977, except as noted below. In addition, continued satisfaction ofthe requirements ofPart D for the ozone portion ofthe SIP depends on the adoption and submittal ofRACT requirements byJuly 1, 1980 for the sources covered by CTGsissued between January, 1978 and January, 1979 and adoption and submittal by each subsequent January ofadditional RACT requirements for sources covered by CTGs issuedby the previous January. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO2e; or

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82562 2010Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)-

(i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the air pollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows:

(A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published atTable A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultantvalue from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gas to compute a tpy CO 2e.

(iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in the definitions for"actual emissions" and "allowable emissions" under section 5-101 ofChapter 5, subchapter I ofVermont's Air Pollution Control Environmental Protection regulations) and a significant net emissions increase (asdefined in the definitions for "significant" under section 5-101 ofChapter 5, subchapter I ofVermont's Air Pollution Control Environmental Protection regulations)

occur. For the pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shall be based ontpy CO 2e, and shallbe calculated assuming the pollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in the definition of"major modification" under section 5-101 of Chapter 5,subchapter I ofVermont's Air Pollution Control Environmental Protection regulations.
Subpart VV-Virginia

* 24. Section 52.2423 is amended by adding paragraph (t)toread as follows:
§52.2423 Approval status.

(t)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator
approves that application only to the extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (t), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent that GHGs are not "subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is anew major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will emit or will have thepotential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant that is not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1,2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (t)(2) of this section, thepollutant GHGs shall also be subject to regulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method of operation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes of this paragraph (t)-

(i) theterm greenhouse gas shall mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (t)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated usingthe procedures in 9 VAC 5-80-1605 G of the Commonwealth ofVirginia's Administrative Code) and a significant
net emissions increase (as defined in the definitions for "netemissions increase," "significant" subparagraph a., and "significant emissions increase" under 9 VAC 5-80-1605 C ofthe Commonwealth ofVirginia's Administrative Code) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shallbe based on tpy CO2e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value specified in the definition for "significant" subparagraph b. under 9 VAC 5-80-1605 C ofthe Commonwealth ofVirginia's Administrative Code.
Subpart YY-Wisconsin

* 25. Section 52.2572 isrevised toread

as follows: 

### §52.2572 Approval status.

(a)With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator approves Wisconsin's plans for the attainment and maintenance ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards under section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, the Administrator finds the plans satisfy allrequirements ofPart D, Title I, ofthe CleanAir Act as amended in 1977, except as noted below. In addition, continued satisfaction ofthe requirements ofPart D for the Ozone portion ofthe State Implementation Plan depends on the adoption and submittal ofRACT requirements on: (1)Group III Control Techniques Guideline sources within 1year after January 1st following the issuance of each Group III controltechnique guideline; and (2)Major (actual emissions equal or greater than 100 tons VOC per year) non-control technique guideline sources in accordance with the State's schedule contained in the 1982 Ozone SIP revision for Southeastern Wisconsin. (b)(1) Insofar as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions found in this subpart apply
to stationary sources ofgreenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions, the Administrator approves that application only to the
extent that GHGs are "subject to regulation", as provided in this paragraph (b), and the Administrator takes no action on that application to the extent thatGHGs are not"subject to regulation." (2)Beginning January 2,2011, the pollutant GHGs is subject to regulation if:(i) The stationary source is a new major stationary source for a regulated NSR pollutant thatis notGHGs, and also will emit or will have the potential
to emit 75,000 tpy CO 2 e or more; or (ii)The stationary source is an existing major stationary source for a 82563

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82563 2010

### 82564 Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 250/Thursday, December 30, 2010/Rules and Regulations

regulated NSR pollutant thatis not GHGs, and also will have an emissions increase ofa regulated NSR pollutant, and an emissions increase of75,000 tpy CO 2e or more; and, (3)Beginning July 1, 2011, in addition
to the provisions in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the pollutant GHGs shall also be subject toregulation: (i) Ata new stationary source thatwill emit or have the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e; or

(ii)At an existing stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 100,000 tpy CO 2e, when such stationary

source undertakes a physical change or change in the method ofoperation that will result in an emissions increase of 75,000 tpy CO 2e or more.

(4) Forpurposes ofthisparagraph (b)- (i) The term greenhouse gas shall

mean the airpollutant defined in 40 CFR 86.1818-12(a) as the aggregate group ofsix greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii)The term tpy CO 2equivalent emissions (CO 2 e) shall represent an amount ofGHGs emitted, and shall be computed as follows: (A)Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each ofthe six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of40 CFR part 98-Global Warming Potentials. (B) Sum the resultant value from paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) ofthis section for each gasto compute a tpy CO 2e. (iii)The term emissions increase shall

mean thatboth a significant emissions increase (as calculated using the procedures in NR405.025 of Wisconsin's Administrative Code) and a significant net emissions increase (as defined in NR 405.02, paragraphs (24), (27)(a), and (27m) ofWisconsin's Administrative Code) occur. Forthe pollutant GHGs, an emissions increase shallbe based on tpy CO 2 e, and shall be calculated assuming thepollutant GHGs is a regulated NSR pollutant, and "significant" is defined as 75,000 tpy CO 2e instead ofapplying the value in NR 405.02(27)(c) ofWisconsin's Administrative Code.

[FRDoe. 2010-32766 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

HeinOnline -- 75 Fed. Reg. 82564 2010