12092 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

3Comment of Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP at 

3–5 (Sep. 3, 2020), available at https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2020-0047- 

0003. 4 Federal Trade Commission: Prohibitions on 

Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40690, 

n.58 (Aug. 12, 2009) (citing Comment of Senator 

Maria Cantwell at 2); see also Comment of Senator 

Cantwell at 2 (‘‘Congress, however, specifically 

intended for the Commission to exercise this new 

authority by working cooperatively and in tandem 

with the CFTC to prevent and deter any 

manipulative activity, including in the futures 

markets, which would affect wholesale petroleum 

markets.’’). ESUS identifies the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 

(‘‘Dodd-Frank’’) as a source of legal authority for the 

CFTC to regulate market manipulation of wholesale 

petroleum markets. The Commission notes that 

Senator Cantwell, who sponsored the EISA 

provision authorizing the Rule, also helped lead the 

effort to pass the Dodd-Frank provision to which 

ESUS refers. Federal Trade Commission: 

Prohibitions on Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 

74 FR at 40704 (Aug. 12, 2009); Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission: Prohibition on the 

Employment, or Attempted Employment, of 

Manipulative and Deceptive Devices and 

Prohibition on Price Manipulation; Final Rule, 76 

FR at 41410 (July 14, 2011). 

5Commodity Futures Trading Commission: 

Prohibition on the Employment, or Attempted 

Employment, of Manipulative and Deceptive 

Devices and Prohibition on Price Manipulation; 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 41409 (July 14, 2011). 

6 Federal Trade Commission: Prohibitions on 

Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40691 

(Aug. 12, 2009). 

7Federal Trade Commission, Memorandum of 

Understanding Between the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission and the Federal Trade 

Commission Regarding Information Sharing in 

Areas of Common Regulatory Interest, at 1 ¶ 3 (Apr. 

12, 2011), available at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/ 

cooperation-agreements/commodity-futurestrading-commission-federal-trade-commission. 

8Comment of Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP at 

8 (Sep. 3, 2020), available at https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2020-0047- 

0003. 

9 Id. at 9. 

10 Federal Trade Commission: Prohibitions on 

Market Manipulation; Final Rule, 74 FR at 40701 

(Aug. 12, 2009). 

11Comment of Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP at 

6, 9 (Sep. 3, 2020), available at https://

beta.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2020-0047- 

0003. 

12 Id. 

explains the Commission’s decision to 

retain the Rule in its current form. 

ESUS recommends the Commission 

rescind the Rule partly because the 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) has the legal 

authority and the ability to regulate 

market manipulation of wholesale 

petroleum markets.3 This overlap in 

regulatory authority is by design.4 It is 

intended to facilitate cooperation and 

ensure comprehensive enforcement that 

enhances regulatory certainty for 

businesses and consumers, a point the 

CFTC made in 2011 in response to a 

similar comment during the CFTC’s 

rulemaking process.5 The Commission 

stated its intent to cooperate with other 

agencies, including the CFTC, when 

adopting the Rule in 2009,6 and 

memorialized that commitment in a 

2011 Memorandum of Understanding 

with the CFTC. Under the Memorandum 

of Understanding, the Commission and 

the CFTC continue to cooperate on 

‘‘issues of common regulatory interest, 

particularly as such interest relates to 

market manipulation, [to] foster fair 

competition and promote the integrity 

of the markets, including petroleum 

markets.’’ 7

ESUS also asserts that rescinding the 

Rule eliminates the risk market 

participants will incur penalties from 

both the Commission and the CFTC for 

the same act of market manipulation.8

This risk has never materialized. 

ESUS also asserts the Rule imposes 

compliance costs on market participants 

and diverts Commission resources away 

from enforcement of consumer 

protection and antitrust laws.9 With 

respect to compliance costs on market 

participants, the Commission notes the 

Rule does not require any affirmative 

compliance efforts such as 

recordkeeping or disclosure of 

information; rather, the Rule requires 

only that market participants refrain 

from fraudulent and deceptive 

statements or behavior.10 As ESUS 

points out, the CFTC’s broader authority 

to regulate market manipulation 

includes prohibiting the conduct the 

Commission’s Rule prohibits.11

Maintaining compliance programs to 

avoid violating these substantially 

similar requirements does not lead to 

additive compliance costs. As a result, 

and given the absence of any additional 

substantiation of compliance costs 

associated with the Rule, the 

Commission concludes the Rule 

continues to impose minimal costs on 

businesses. 

Finally, after consideration, and given 

the benefits to consumers relative to the 

costs associated with Rule enforcement, 

the Commission declines to adopt 

ESUS’ position that rescinding the Rule 

‘‘would allow the FTC to rededicate 

limited internal resources to its core 

consumer protection and antitrust 

missions.’’ 12

IV. Conclusion 

After considering the comment and 

the evidence, the Commission 

concludes (1) there is a continuing need 

for the Rule; (2) the Rule benefits 

consumers and businesses; (3) the Rule 

does not impose substantial economic 

burdens; and (4) the benefits outweigh 

the minimal costs the Rule imposes. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined to retain the current Rule 

and is terminating this review. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04196 Filed 3–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0631; FRL–10018– 

05–Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Nitrogen Oxides SIP Call Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

concerning nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

emissions submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), through a letter 

dated December 19, 2019, which revises 

the Tennessee Air Pollution Control 

Rule (TAPCR) titled ‘‘NOX SIP Call 

Requirements for Stationary Boilers and 

Combustion Turbines’’ (TN 2017 NOX

SIP Call Rule) to correct the definition 

of ‘‘affected unit’’ and to clarify 

requirements related to stationary 

boilers and combustion turbines. EPA is 

also converting the conditional approval 

of the TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule to a 

full approval. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2018–0631. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials can 

either be retrieved electronically via 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 12093 

1See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). As 

originally promulgated, the NOX SIP Call also 

addressed good neighbor obligations under the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, but EPA subsequently stayed 

and later rescinded the rule’s provisions with 

respect to that standard. See 65 FR 56245 

(September 18, 2000); 84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2019). 

2See 69 FR 3015 (January 22, 2004). 

3CAIR had separate trading programs for annual 

sulfur dioxide emissions, seasonal NOX emissions 

and annual NOX emissions. 

4See 72 FR 46388. 

5See 74 FR 61535. 

6See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) and 81 FR 

13275 (March 14, 2016). 

7See 81 FR at 74540. EPA notes that the aspects 

of the CSAPR Update affecting Tennessee were not 

challenged in the litigation over the rule and are not 

affected by the remand of the rule in Wisconsin v. 

EPA, 983 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 

8EPA notes that it received the submittal on 

February 28, 2017. 

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Scofield, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached 

via electronic mail at scofield.steve@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which EPA has 

traditionally termed the good neighbor 

provision, states are required to address 

the interstate transport of air pollution. 

Specifically, the good neighbor 

provision requires that each state’s 

implementation plan contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit air pollutant 

emissions from within the state that will 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS), or that 

will interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS, in any other state. 

In October 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA 

finalized the ‘‘Finding of Significant 

Contribution and Rulemaking for 

Certain States in the Ozone Transport 

Assessment Group Region for Purposes 

of Reducing Regional Transport of 

Ozone’’ (‘‘NOX SIP Call’’). The NOX SIP 

Call required eastern states, including 

Tennessee, to submit SIPs that prohibit 

excessive emissions of ozone season 

NOX by implementing statewide 

emissions budgets.1 The NOX SIP Call 

addressed the good neighbor provision 

for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and was 

designed to mitigate the impact of 

transported NOX emissions, one of the 

precursors of ozone. EPA developed the 

NOX Budget Trading Program, an 

allowance trading program that states 

could adopt to meet their obligations 

under the NOX SIP Call. This trading 

program allowed the following sources 

to participate in a regional cap and trade 

program: Generally electric generating 

units (EGUs) with capacity greater than 

25 megawatts (MW); and large industrial 

non-EGUs, such as boilers and 

combustion turbines, with a rated heat 

input greater than 250 million British 

thermal units per hour. The NOX SIP 

Call also identified potential reductions 

from cement kilns and stationary 

internal combustion engines. 

On January 22, 2004, EPA approved 

into the Tennessee SIP the State’s NOX

Budget Trading Program rule.2 The NOX

Budget Trading Program was 

implemented from 2003 to 2008. The 

provisions required EGUs and large 

non-EGUs in the state to participate in 

the NOX Budget Trading Program. 

In 2005, EPA published the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required 

eastern states, including Tennessee, to 

submit SIPs that prohibited emissions 

consistent with ozone season (and 

annual) NOX budgets. See 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005). CAIR addressed the 

good neighbor provision for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and was 

designed to mitigate the impact of 

transported NOX emissions with respect 

to not only ozone but also PM2.5. CAIR 

established several trading programs 

that EPA implemented through federal 

implementation plans (FIPs) for EGUs 

greater than 25 MW in each affected 

state, but not large non-EGUs; states 

could submit SIPs to replace the FIPs 

that achieved the required emission 

reductions from EGUs and, at their 

discretion, could include other types of 

sources as well.3 When the CAIR trading 

program for ozone season NOX was 

implemented beginning in 2009, EPA 

discontinued administration of the NOX

Budget Trading Program; however, the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call 

continued to apply. 

On August 20, 2007, EPA approved 

into the Tennessee SIP an abbreviated 

CAIR SIP revision with allowance 

allocations and opt-in provisions.4 On 

November 25, 2009, EPA approved into 

the Tennessee SIP a further abbreviated 

CAIR SIP revision expanding 

applicability of the CAIR ozone season 

NOX trading program to NOX SIP Call 

non-EGUs.5

In 2011, EPA published the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to 

replace CAIR and address the good 

neighbor provisions for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011). Through FIPs, 

CSAPR required EGUs in eastern states, 

including Tennessee, to meet annual 

and ozone season NOX emission budgets 

and annual SO2 emission budgets 

implemented through new trading 

programs. Implementation of CSAPR 

began on January 1, 2015.6 CSAPR also 

contained provisions that would sunset 

CAIR-related obligations on a schedule 

coordinated with the implementation of 

the CSAPR compliance requirements. 

In 2016, EPA published the CSAPR 

Update to address the good neighbor 

provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). 

Although for most covered states, EPA 

found the CSAPR Update may only 

partially address the states’ good 

neighbor obligations for this NAAQS, 

EPA found the rule fully addresses 

Tennessee’s good neighbor obligation 

for this NAAQS.7 The CSAPR Update 

trading program replaced the original 

CSAPR trading program for ozone 

season NOX for most covered states. 

Tennessee’s EGUs participate in the 

CSAPR Update trading program, 

generally also addressing the state’s 

obligations under the NOX SIP Call for 

EGUs. However, Tennessee has not 

chosen to expand applicability of the 

CSAPR Update trading program to its 

large non-EGUs. 

Through a letter to EPA dated 

February 27, 2017,8 Tennessee provided 

a SIP revision to incorporate a new 

provision—TACPR 1200–03–27–.12, 

‘‘NOX SIP Call Requirements for 

Stationary Boilers and Combustion 

Turbines’’ (TN 2017 NOX SIP Call 

Rule)—into the SIP. The TN 2017 NOX

SIP Call Rule established a state control 

program for sources that are subject to 

the NOX SIP Call, but not covered under 

CSAPR or the CSAPR Update. The TN 

2017 NOX SIP Call Rule contains several 

subsections that together comprise a 

non-EGU control program under which 

Tennessee will allocate a specified 

budget of allowances to affected 

sources. Subsequently, on May 11, 2018, 

and October 11, 2018, Tennessee 

submitted letters requesting conditional 

approval of the TN 2017 NOX SIP Call 

Rule and committing to provide a SIP 

revision to EPA by December 31, 2019, 

to address a deficiency by revising the 

definition of ‘‘affected unit’’ to remove 

the unqualified exclusion for any unit 

that serves a generator that produces 

power for sale. Based on the State’s 

commitment to submit a SIP revision 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
12094 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

9EPA is not reopening its prior rulemaking 

actions in this action. 

addressing the identified deficiency, 

EPA conditionally approved the 

February 27, 2017, submission. In the 

same action, EPA approved removal of 

the State’s NOX Budget Trading Program 

and CAIR rules from Tennessee’s SIP. 

See 84 FR 7998 (March 6, 2019). 

Tennessee submitted a SIP revision 

on December 19, 2019, which revised 

TAPCR 1200–03–27–.12, ‘‘NOX SIP Call 

Requirements for Stationary Boilers and 

Combustion Turbines’’ to correct the 

definition of ‘‘affected unit’’ and to 

clarify requirements related to 

stationary boilers and combustion 

turbines. On June 8, 2020 (85 FR 35046), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to correct 

the definition of ‘‘affected unit’’ and to 

clarify requirements related to 

stationary boilers and combustion 

turbines. EPA also proposed to convert 

the conditional approval of the TN 2017 

NOX SIP Call Rule to a full approval. 

See EPA’s June 8, 2020 (85 FR 35046), 

NPRM for further detail on these 

changes and EPA’s rationale for 

approving them. 

II. Response To Comment 

EPA received one public comment on 

the June 8, 2020, NPRM. The comment 

is provided in the docket for this final 

rulemaking. EPA’s response to this 

comment is below. 

Comment: The commenter asserts that 

EPA should not approve this rule and 

that EPA should rescind its prior 

conditional approval of the TN 2017 

NOX SIP Call Rule. The commenter 

asserts that court rulings have found 

that EPA’s reliance on modeling for the 

year 2023 was improper, and EPA must 

fully address upwind state’s significant 

contribution by the applicable 

attainment date. The commenter further 

asserts that the CSAPR Update does not 

fully address downwind contributions 

under the Wisconsin and New York 

court decisions. The commenter also 

asserts that EPA cannot approve this 

action until it addresses the court 

decisions, including Wisconsin, New 

York, and Maryland. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comment that EPA should not approve 

this rule and should rescind its prior 

approval of the TN 2017 NOX SIP Call 

Rule. As discussed above, EPA has 

already approved the TN 2017 NOX SIP 

Call Rule, which addressed Tennessee’s 

ongoing NOX SIP Call obligations for 

existing and new large non-EGUs and 

which EPA conditionally approved due 

to a deficiency in the definition of 

affected unit. See 84 FR 7998 (March 6, 

2019). In this action, EPA is approving 

into the Tennessee SIP changes to the 

TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule that correct 

the definition of ‘‘affected unit,’’ clarify 

requirements related to stationary 

boilers and combustion turbines, and 

convert the conditional approval to a 

full approval. See NPRM. EPA has 

evaluated these changes, has 

determined that the changes correct the 

deficiency and provide clarifying edits 

that are consistent with the NOX SIP 

Call and the CAA, and is approving 

those changes into the SIP. See id. In 

this action, EPA is not approving any 

changes to the NOX SIP Call or to 

Tennessee’s obligations under the NOX

SIP Call, and did not approve any such 

changes through its prior approval of 

the TN 2017 NOX SIP Call Rule.9

With respect to the commenter’s 

assertions regarding Wisconsin, New 

York, Maryland, and 2023 modeling, 

EPA believes these comments to be 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Nevertheless, EPA is providing the 

following explanation. The NOX SIP 

Call fully addressed obligations under 

the good neighbor provision for the 

1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In contrast, 

the CSAPR Update, which was at issue 

in Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 308– 

37 (D.C. Cir. 2019), and the CSAPR 

Close-out, which was at issue in New 

York v. EPA, 781 F. App’x 4 (D.C. Cir. 

2019), involved obligations under the 

good neighbor provision for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Further, Maryland v. 

EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020), 

which applied the Wisconsin decision 

in the context of EPA’s denial of a 

petition under CAA section 126(b), 

included a discussion with regard to 

obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

None of these cases bear on the approval 

action here, which has nothing to do 

with the selection of an analytic year or 

developing a full remedy for addressing 

good neighbor obligations. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of TAPCR 1200–03–27–.12, 

‘‘NOX SIP Call Requirements for 

Stationary Boilers and Combustion 

Turbines,’’ state effective December 12, 

2019, which revises Tennessee’s state 

control program to comply with the 

obligations of the NOX SIP Call. EPA has 

made, and will continue to make the SIP 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

Therefore, the revised materials as 

stated above, have been approved by 

EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference in the next 

update to the SIP compilation. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Tennessee’s 

December 19, 2019, submission, which 

revises TAPCR 1200–03–27–.12, ‘‘NOX

SIP Call Requirements for Stationary 

Boilers and Combustion Turbines,’’ to 

correct the definition of ‘‘affected unit’’ 

and to clarify requirements related to 

stationary boilers and combustion 

turbines. In addition, EPA is converting 

the March 6, 2019, conditional approval 

of TAPCR 1200–03–27–.12 to a full 

approval. EPA has concluded that these 

changes will not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 39 / Tuesday, March 2, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 12095 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before 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 of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 3, 2021. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: February 23, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

52 as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

§ 52.2219 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2219 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (a). 

■ 3. In § 52.2220 amend Table 1 in 

paragraph (c) by revising the entry for 

‘‘Section 1200–3–27–.12’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

CHAPTER 1200–3–27 NITROGEN OXIDES 

*******

Section 1200–3–27–.12 NOX SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines.

12/12/2019 3/2/2021, [Insert citation 

of publication].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–04061 Filed 3–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0037; FRL–10019– 

32–Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 

Revision to Taconite Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is revising a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) addressing 

the requirement for best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for the 

United States Steel Corporation’s (U.S. 

Steel) taconite plant located in Mt. Iron, 

Minnesota (Minntac or Minntac 

facility). We are revising the nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) limits for U.S. Steel’s 

taconite furnaces at its Minntac facility 

because new information has come to 

light that was not available when we 

originally promulgated the FIP on 

February 6, 2013. The EPA is finalizing 

this action pursuant to sections 110 and 

169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES