Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68265 

12Mississippi’s submittal also revises definitions 

for APC–S–6—Air Emissions Operating Permit 

Regulations for the Purposes of Title V of the 

Federal Clean Air; however, these relate to title V 

and are not included in the SIP. As such, EPA is 

not proposing to take action to approve 

Mississippi’s update to this regulation in this 

rulemaking. 

permitting resources and severely 

impair the function of the program. 

The State of Mississippi’s September 

14, 2010, proposed SIP revision 

establishes thresholds for determining 

which stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions under Mississippi’s PSD 

program. Specifically, Mississippi’s 

September 14, 2010, proposed SIP 

revision incorporates by reference, the 

Federal tailoring rule provisions at 40 

CFR 52.21 (as amended June 3, 2010, 

and effective August 2, 2010), into the 

Mississippi SIP (APC–S–5—Regulations 

for the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 12) to address the 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability. 

Mississippi is currently a SIPapproved state for the PSD program, and 

has incorporated by reference EPA’s 

2002 NSR reform revisions for PSD at 40 

CFR 52.21. In a letter provided to EPA 

on July 28, 2010, Mississippi notified 

EPA of its interpretation that the State’s 

current PSD regulations provided 

MDEQ the authority to regulate GHG 

under Regulation APC–S–5 (which 

includes the preconstruction review 

program required by Part C of title I of 

the CAA). Mississippi’s current PSD 

program incorporates by reference the 

Federal requirements, found at 40 CFR 

52.21 (adopted prior to the 

promulgation of EPA’s Tailoring Rule), 

into the State’s major source PSD 

program (which applies to major 

stationary sources having the potential 

to emit at least 100-tpy or 250-tpy or 

more of a regulated NSR pollutant, 

depending on the type of source or 

modifications constructing in areas 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

with respect to the NAAQS). 

This current SIP revision to 

APC–S–5 (the subject of this proposed 

rulemaking) incorporates by reference 

the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 as 

amended and promulgated as of 

September 13, 2010. Specifically, 

Mississippi’s September 14, 2010, 

revision updates its existing 

incorporation by reference of the 

Federal NSR program to include the 

relevant Federal Tailoring Rule 

provisions set forth at 40 CFR 52.21. 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

Mississippi’s proposed SIP revision is 

consistent with the Tailoring Rule. 

Furthermore, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that this revision to 

Mississippi’s SIP is consistent with 

section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., 

Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Mississippi’s September 14, 2010, SIP 

revision, relating to PSD requirements 

for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, 

Mississippi’s September 14, 2010, 

proposed SIP revision establishes 

appropriate emissions thresholds for 

determining PSD applicability with 

respect to new and modified GHGemitting sources in accordance with 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is approvable because it is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 27, 2010. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28005 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0696–201042; FRL– 

9222–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a draft revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution 

Control Division, to EPA on August 30, 

2010, for parallel processing. The 

proposed SIP revision modifies 

Tennessee’s New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. Specifically, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

68266 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

proposed SIP revision establishes 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Tennessee’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, SIP 

revision is necessary because without it, 

on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements 

would apply at the 100 or 250 tons per 

year (tpy) levels provided under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), which 

would overwhelm Tennessee’s 

permitting resources. EPA is proposing 

approval of Tennessee’s August 30, 

2010, SIP revision relating to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources 

because the Agency has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is in accordance with the CAA 

and EPA regulations regarding PSD 

permitting for GHGs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0697, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0697, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0697.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit through http://www.

regulations.gov or e-mail, information 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The http://www.regulations.

gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through http://www.regulations.

gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://www.

epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://www.

regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Tennessee 

SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; e-mail address: bradley.

twunjala@epa.gov. For information 

regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact 

Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits 

Section, at the same address above. Ms. 

Abrams’ telephone number is (404) 562– 

9185; e-mail address: abrams.heather@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

notice? 

II. What is the background for the action 

proposed by EPA in today’s notice? 

III. What is the relationship between today’s 

proposed action and EPA’s proposed 

GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Tennessee’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s notice? 

On August 30, 2010, TDEC submitted 

a draft revision to EPA for approval into 

the Tennessee SIP to establish 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new or modified 

stationary sources become subject to 

Tennessee’s PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions. Final 

approval of Tennessee’s August 30, 

2010, SIP revision will put in place the 

GHG emission thresholds for PSD 

applicability set forth in EPA’s Tailoring 

Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), 

ensuring that smaller GHG sources 

emitting less than these thresholds will 

not be subject to permitting 

requirements when these requirements 

begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 

2011. Pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this 

revision into the Tennessee SIP. 

Because this draft SIP revision is not 

yet state-effective, Tennessee requested 

that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ the SIP 

revision. Under this procedure, the EPA 

Regional Office works closely with the 

state while developing new or revised 

regulations. Generally, the state submits 

a copy of the proposed regulation or 

other revisions to EPA before 

conducting its public hearing. EPA 

reviews this proposed state action and 

prepares a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice 

of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and solicits public comment in 

approximately the same time frame 

during which the state is holding its 

public hearing. The state and EPA thus 

provide for public comment periods on 

both the state and the federal actions in 

parallel. 

After Tennessee submits the formal 

state-effective SIP revision request 

(including a response to all public 

comments raised during the state’s 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68267 

1On September 2, 2010, EPA proposed a ‘‘SIP 

Call’’ that would require those states with SIPs that 

do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to submit 

a SIP revision providing such authority. 75 FR 

53892. In a companion rulemaking, EPA proposed 

a federal implementation plan (FIP) that would 

apply in any state that is unable to submit the 

required SIP revision by its deadline. 75 FR 53883 

(September 2, 2010). Because Tennessee’s SIP 

already authorizes Tennessee to regulate GHGs once 

GHGs become subject to PSD requirements on 

January 2, 2011, Tennessee is not subject to the 

proposed SIP Call or FIP. 

public participation process), EPA will 

prepare a final rulemaking notice for the 

SIP revision. If changes are made to the 

SIP revision after EPA’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking, such changes 

must be acknowledged in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action. If the changes are 

significant, then EPA may be obliged to 

re-propose the action. In addition, if the 

changes render the SIP revision not 

approvable, EPA’s re-proposal of the 

action would be a disapproval of the 

revision. 

II. What is the background for the 

action proposed by EPA in today’s 

notice? 

Today’s proposed action on the 

Tennessee SIP relates to EPA’s 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule,’’ Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 

75 FR 31514. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA 

established appropriate GHG emission 

thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. These 

applicability thresholds were designed 

to ensure that smaller GHG sources will 

not be subject to GHG permitting 

requirements. While Tennessee already 

has authority to issue PSD permits 

governing GHGs when PSD 

requirements begin applying to GHGs 

on January 2, 2011, Tennessee needs to 

amend its SIP to incorporate the 

Tailoring Rule’s applicability 

thresholds. Today’s notice announces 

EPA’s proposed approval of a revision 

to Tennessee’s SIP that would put these 

applicability thresholds in place.1

Below is a brief overview of GHGs 

and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA 

PSD program, minimum SIP elements 

for a PSD program, and EPA’s recent 

actions regarding GHG permitting. 

Following this section, EPA discusses, 

in sections III and IV, the relationship 

between the proposed Tennessee SIP 

revision and EPA’s other national 

rulemakings as well as EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s SIP revision. 

A. What are GHGs and their sources? 

A detailed explanation of GHGs, 

climate change and the impact on 

health, society, and the environment is 

included in EPA’s technical support 

document for EPA’s GHG endangerment 

finding final rule (Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11292 at 

http://www.regulations.gov). The 

endangerment finding rulemaking is 

discussed later in this rulemaking. A 

summary of the nature and sources of 

GHGs is provided below. 

GHGs trap the Earth’s heat that would 

otherwise escape from the atmosphere 

into space and form the greenhouse 

effect that helps keep the Earth warm 

enough for life. GHGs are naturally 

present in the atmosphere and are also 

emitted by human activities. Human 

activities are intensifying the naturally 

occurring greenhouse effect by 

increasing the amount of GHGs in the 

atmosphere, which is changing the 

climate in a way that endangers human 

health, society, and the natural 

environment. 

Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide 

(CO2), are emitted to the atmosphere 

through natural processes as well as 

human activities. Other gases, such as 

fluorinated gases, are created and 

emitted solely through human activities. 

The well-mixed GHGs of concern 

directly emitted by human activities 

include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the six wellmixed GHG,’’ or, simply, GHGs. 

Together these six well-mixed GHGs 

constitute the ‘‘air pollutant’’ upon 

which the GHG thresholds in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule are based. These six 

gases remain in the atmosphere for 

decades to centuries where they become 

well-mixed globally in the atmosphere. 

When they are emitted more quickly 

than natural processes can remove them 

from the atmosphere, their 

concentrations increase, thus increasing 

the greenhouse effect. 

In the U.S., the combustion of fossil 

fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the largest 

source of CO2 emissions and accounts 

for 80 percent of the total GHG 

emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO2

emissions released from a variety of 

sources, including through the use of 

fossil fuel combustion and cement 

production from geologically stored 

carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) 

that is hundreds of millions of years old, 

as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions 

from land-use changes such as 

deforestation, perturb the atmospheric 

concentration of CO2, and the 

distribution of carbon within different 

reservoirs readjusts. More than half of 

the energy-related emissions come from 

large stationary sources such as power 

plants, while about a third come from 

transportation. Of the six well-mixed 

GHGs, four (CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs) 

are emitted by motor vehicles. In the 

U.S., industrial processes (such as the 

production of cement, steel, and 

aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other 

land use, and waste management are 

also important sources of GHGs. 

Different GHGs have different heattrapping capacities. The concept of 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) was 

developed to compare the heat-trapping 

capacity and atmospheric lifetime of 

one GHG to another. The definition of 

a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio 

of heat trapped by one unit mass of the 

GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2

over a specified time period. When 

quantities of the different GHGs are 

multiplied by their GWPs, the different 

GHGs can be summed and compared on 

a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 

basis. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 

21, meaning each ton of CH4 emissions 

would have 21 times as much impact on 

global warming over a 100-year time 

horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, 

on the basis of heat-trapping capability, 

1 ton of CH4 would equal 21 tons of 

CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2 GHG 

range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for 

SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2e 

basis at the source level allows a facility 

to evaluate its total GHG emissions 

contribution based on a single metric. 

B. What are the general requirements of 

the PSD program? 

1. Overview of the PSD Program 

The PSD program is a preconstruction 

review and permitting program 

applicable to new major stationary 

sources and major modifications at 

existing stationary sources. The PSD 

program applies in areas that are 

designated ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for a national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD 

program is contained in part C of title 

I of the CAA. The ‘‘nonattainment NSR’’ 

program applies in areas not in 

attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone 

Transport Region, and it is implemented 

under the requirements of part D of title 

I of the CAA. Collectively, EPA 

commonly refers to these two programs 

as the major NSR program. The 

governing EPA rules are contained in 40 

CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and 

part 51, Appendices S and W. There is 

no NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other 

well-mixed GHGs, nor has EPA 

proposed any such NAAQS; Therefore, 

unless and until EPA takes further such 

action, the nonattainment NSR program 

does not apply to GHGs. 

The applicability of PSD to a 

particular source must be determined in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

68268 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2EPA notes that the PSD program has historically 

operated in this fashion for all pollutants—when 

new sources or modifications are ‘‘major,’’ PSD 

applies to all pollutants that are emitted in 

significant quantities from the source or project. 

This rule does not alter that for sources or 

modifications that are major due to their GHG 

emissions. 

advance of construction or modification 

and is pollutant-specific. The primary 

criterion in determining PSD 

applicability is whether the proposed 

project is sufficiently large (in terms of 

its emissions) to be a major stationary 

source or modification, both of which 

are described below. EPA has 

implemented these requirements in its 

regulations, which use somewhat 

different terminology than the CAA 

does, for determining PSD applicability. 

a. Major Stationary Sources 

Under PSD, a ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ is any source belonging to a 

specified list of 28 source categories that 

emits or has the potential to emit 100 

tpy or more of any air pollutant subject 

to regulation under the CAA, or any 

other source type that emits or has the 

potential to emit such pollutants in 

amounts equal to or greater than 250 

tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We 

refer to these levels as the 100/250-tpy 

thresholds. A new source with a 

potential to emit (PTE) at or above the 

applicable ‘‘major stationary source 

threshold’’ is subject to major NSR. 

These limits originate from section 169 

of the CAA, which applies PSD to any 

‘‘major emitting facility’’ and defines the 

term to include any source that emits or 

has a PTE of 100 or 250 tpy, depending 

on the source category. Note that the 

major source definition incorporates the 

phrase ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ which, as 

described later, will begin to include 

GHGs on January 2, 2011, under our 

interpretation of that phrase as 

discussed in the recent memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of 

Regulations that Determine Pollutants 

Covered by Federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 

Program.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

b. Major Modifications 

PSD also applies to existing sources 

that undertake a ‘‘major modification,’’ 

which occurs when: (1) There is a 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a ‘‘major 

stationary source;’’ (2) the change results 

in a ‘‘significant’’ emissions increase of 

a pollutant subject to regulation (equal 

to or above the significance level that 

EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a 

‘‘significant net emissions increase’’ of a 

pollutant subject to regulation that is 

equal to or above the significance level 

(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). 

Significance levels, which EPA has 

promulgated for criteria pollutants and 

certain other pollutants, represent a de 

minimis contribution to air quality 

problems. When EPA has not set a 

significance level for a regulated NSR 

pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of 

the pollutant in any amount (that is, in 

effect, the significance level is treated as 

zero). 

2. General Requirements for PSD 

This section provides a very brief 

summary of the main requirements of 

the PSD program. One principal 

requirement is that a new major source 

or major modification must apply best 

available control technology (BACT), 

which is determined on a case-by-case 

basis taking into account, among other 

factors, the cost effectiveness of the 

control and energy and environmental 

impacts. EPA has developed a ‘‘topdown’’ approach for BACT review, 

which involves a decision process that 

includes identification of all available 

control technologies, elimination of 

technically infeasible options, ranking 

of remaining options by control and cost 

effectiveness, and then selection of 

BACT. Under PSD, once a source is 

determined to be major for any 

regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review 

is performed for each attainment 

pollutant that exceeds its PSD 

significance level as part of new 

construction or for modification projects 

at the source, where there is a 

significant increase and a significant net 

emissions increase of such pollutant.2

In addition to performing BACT, the 

source must analyze impacts on ambient 

air quality to assure that sources do not 

cause or contribute to violation of any 

NAAQS or PSD increments and must 

analyze impacts on soil, vegetation, and 

visibility. In addition, sources or 

modifications that would impact Class I 

areas (e.g., national parks) may be 

subject to additional requirements to 

protect air quality related values 

(AQRVs) that have been identified for 

such areas. Under PSD, if a source’s 

proposed project impacts a Class I area, 

the Federal Land Manager is notified 

and is responsible for evaluating a 

source’s projected impact on the AQRVs 

and recommending either approval or 

disapproval of the source’s permit 

application based on anticipated 

impacts. There are currently no NAAQS 

or PSD increments established for 

GHGs, and therefore these PSD 

requirements would not apply for 

GHGs, even when PSD is triggered for 

GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for 

a GHG-emitting source, all regulated 

NSR pollutants that the new source 

emits in significant amounts would be 

subject to PSD requirements. Therefore, 

if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG 

pollutants for which there are 

established NAAQS or increments, the 

air quality, additional impacts, and 

Class I requirements would apply to 

those pollutants. 

Pursuant to existing PSD 

requirements, the permitting authority 

must provide notice of its preliminary 

decision on a source’s application for a 

PSD permit and must provide an 

opportunity for comment by the public, 

industry, and other interested persons. 

After considering and responding to 

comments, the permitting authority 

must issue a final determination on the 

construction permit. Usually NSR 

permits are issued by a state or local air 

pollution control agency that has its 

own authority to issue PSD permits 

under a permit program that has been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in its 

SIP. In some areas, EPA has delegated 

its authority to issue PSD permits under 

federal regulations to the state or local 

agency. In other areas, EPA issues the 

permits under its own authority. 

C. What are the CAA requirements to 

include the PSD program in the SIP? 

The CAA contemplates that the PSD 

program be implemented in the first 

instance by the states and requires that 

states include PSD requirements in their 

SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

that— 

Each implementation plan * * * shall 

* * * include a program to provide for 

* * * regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source within 

the areas covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a permit 

program as required in part[] C * * * of this 

subchapter. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that— 

Each implementation plan * * * shall 

* * * meet the applicable requirements of 

* * * part C of this subchapter (relating to 

significant deterioration of air quality and 

visibility protection). 

CAA section 161 provides that— 

[E]ach applicable implementation plan 

shall contain emission limitations and such 

other measures as may be necessary, as 

determined under regulations promulgated 

under this part [C], to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in each region 

* * * designated * * * as attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

These provisions, read in conjunction 

with the PSD applicability provisions as 

well as other provisions such as the 

BACT provision under CAA Section 

165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68269 

3 In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that 

commenters argued, with some variations, that the 

PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS pollutants, 

and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD 

provisions apply to all pollutants subject to 

regulation, including GHG. See 75 FR at 31560–62. 

EPA maintains its position that the PSD provisions 

apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the 

Agency incorporates by reference the discussion of 

this issue in the Tailoring Rule. 

4The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V 

program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect Tennessee’s title V program. 

PSD programs that are applicable to, 

among other things, any air pollutant 

that is subject to regulation. As 

discussed below, this includes GHGs on 

and after January 2, 2011.3

A number of states do not have PSD 

programs approved into their SIPs. In 

those states, EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

52.21 govern, and either EPA or the 

state as EPA’s delegatee acts as the 

permitting authority. However, most 

states have PSD programs that have 

been approved into their SIPs, and these 

states implement their PSD programs 

and act as the permitting authority. 

Tennessee has a SIP-approved PSD 

program. 

D. What actions has EPA taken 

concerning PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources? 

1. What are the endangerment finding, 

the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the 

Johnson Memo reconsideration? 

By notice dated December 15, 2009, 

and pursuant to CAA section 202(a), 

EPA issued two findings regarding 

GHGs that are commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and the 

‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding.’’ 

‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74 

FR 66496. In the Endangerment Finding, 

the Administrator found that six longlived and directly emitted GHGs—CO2, 

CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare In the Cause 

or Contribute Finding, the 

Administrator ‘‘defin[ed] the air 

pollutant as the aggregate group of the 

same six * * * greenhouse gases,’’ 74 

FR at 66536, and found that the 

combined emissions of this air pollutant 

from new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines contribute to the GHG 

air pollution that endangers public 

health and welfare. 

By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA 

published what is commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule’’ 

(LDVR), which for the first time 

established federal controls on GHGs 

emitted from light-duty vehicles. ‘‘LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 

25324. In its applicability provisions, 

the LDVR specifies that it ‘‘contains 

standards and other regulations 

applicable to the emissions of six 

greenhouse gases,’’ including CO2, CH4, 

N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR at 

25686 (40 CFR 86.1818–12(a)). 

On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a 

memorandum, ‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of 

Regulations that Determine Pollutants 

Covered by Federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit 

Program’’ (known as the ‘‘Johnson 

Memo’’ or the ‘‘PSD Interpretive Memo,’’ 

and referred to in this preamble as the 

‘‘Interpretive Memo’’), that set forth 

EPA’s interpretation regarding which 

EPA and state actions, with respect to a 

previously unregulated pollutant, cause 

that pollutant to become ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ under the Act. Whether a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ is 

important for the purposes of 

determining whether it is covered under 

the federal PSD permitting program. The 

Interpretive Memo established that a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ only 

if it is subject to either a provision in the 

CAA or regulation adopted by EPA 

under the CAA that requires actual 

control of emissions of that pollutant 

(referred to as the ‘‘actual control 

interpretation’’). On February 17, 2009, 

EPA granted a petition for 

reconsideration on the Interpretive 

Memo and announced its intent to 

conduct a rulemaking to allow for 

public comment on the issues raised in 

the memorandum and on related issues. 

EPA also clarified that the Interpretive 

Memo would remain in effect pending 

reconsideration. 

On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a 

notice conveying its decision to 

continue applying (with one limited 

refinement) the Interpretive Memo’s 

interpretation of ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ 

‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean 

Air Act Permitting Programs.’’ 75 FR 

17004. EPA concluded that the ‘‘actual 

control interpretation’’ is the most 

appropriate interpretation to apply 

given the policy implications. However, 

EPA refined the Agency’s interpretation 

in one respect: EPA established that 

PSD permitting requirements apply to a 

newly regulated pollutant at the time a 

regulatory requirement to control 

emissions of that pollutant ‘‘takes effect’’ 

(rather than upon promulgation or the 

legal effective date of the regulation 

containing such a requirement). In 

addition, based on the anticipated 

promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated 

that the GHG requirements of the 

vehicle rule would take effect on 

January 2, 2011, because that is the 

earliest date that a 2012 model year 

vehicle may be introduced into 

commerce. In other words, the 

compliance obligation under the LDVR 

does not occur until a manufacturer may 

introduce into commerce vehicles that 

are required to comply with GHG 

standards, which will begin with model 

year 2012 and will not occur before 

January 2, 2011. 

2. What is EPA’s Tailoring Rule? 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the 

purpose of relieving overwhelming 

permitting burdens that would, in the 

absence of the rule, fall on permitting 

authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. 

EPA accomplished this by tailoring the 

applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program 4 of the 

CAA. In particular, EPA established in 

the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach 

for PSD applicability and established 

the first two steps of the phase-in for the 

largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA 

committed to certain follow-up actions 

regarding future steps beyond the first 

two, discussed in more detail later in 

this notice. 

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which will begin on January 2, 2011, 

PSD requirements will apply to major 

stationary source GHG emissions only if 

the sources are subject to PSD anyway 

due to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, 

EPA will not require sources or 

modifications to evaluate whether they 

are subject to PSD requirements solely 

on account of their GHG emissions. 

Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires 

that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable 

requirements of PSD, most notably, the 

BACT requirement, will apply to 

projects that increase net GHG 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, 

but only if the project also significantly 

increases emissions of at least one nonGHG pollutant. 

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, 

beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in 

additional large sources of GHG 

emissions. New sources that emit, or 

have the potential to emit, at least 

100,000 tpy CO2e will become subject to 

the PSD requirements. In addition, 

sources that emit or have the potential 

to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e and 

that undertake a modification that 

increases net GHG emissions by at least 

75,000 tpy CO2e will also be subject to 

PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA 

notes that if sources or modifications 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

68270 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5The term ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ is commonly used 

to refer generally to gases that have heat-trapping 

properties. However, in this notice, unless noted 

otherwise, we use it to refer specifically to the 

pollutant regulated in the LDVR. 

6The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, 

and 250 tpy for PSD, except for 28 categories listed 

in EPA regulations for which the PSD threshold is 

100 tpy. 

7Narrowing EPA’s approval will ensure that for 

Federal purposes, sources with GHG emissions that 

are less than the Tailoring Rule’s emission 

thresholds will not be obligated under Federal law 

to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when 

GHG PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 

2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP 

revision adopting EPA’s tailoring approach, or (2) 

if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting 

sources, the state demonstrates to EPA that it has 

adequate resources to handle permitting for such 

sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing 

action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with 

respect to those States for which EPA will not have 

approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs 

by that time. 

exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG 

triggers, they are not covered by 

permitting requirements unless their 

GHG emissions also exceed the 

corresponding mass-based triggers in 

tpy. 

EPA believes that the costs to the 

sources and the administrative burdens 

to the permitting authorities of PSD 

permitting will be manageable at the 

levels in these initial two steps and that 

it would be administratively infeasible 

to subject additional sources to PSD 

requirements at those times. However, 

EPA also intends to issue a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking in 2011, in which the 

Agency will propose or solicit comment 

on a third step of the phase-in that 

would include more sources, beginning 

on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring Rule, 

EPA established an enforceable 

commitment that the Agency will 

complete this rulemaking by July 1, 

2012, which will allow for 1 year’s 

notice before Step 3 would take effect. 

In addition, EPA committed to 

explore streamlining techniques that 

may well make the permitting programs 

much more efficient to administer for 

GHG, and that therefore may allow their 

expansion to smaller sources. EPA 

expects that the initial streamlining 

techniques will take several years to 

develop and implement. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also 

included a provision, that no source 

with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, 

and no modification resulting in net 

GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy 

CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting 

before at least 6 years (i.e., April 30, 

2016). This is because EPA has 

concluded that at the present time, the 

administrative burdens that would 

accompany permitting sources below 

this level would be so great that even 

with the streamlining actions that EPA 

may be able to develop and implement 

in the next several years, and even with 

the increases in permitting resources 

that EPA can reasonably expect the 

permitting authorities to acquire, it 

would be impossible to administer the 

permit programs for these sources until 

at least 2016. 

As EPA explained in the Tailoring 

Rule, the threshold limitations are 

necessary because without them, PSD 

would apply to all stationary sources 

that emit or have the potential to emit 

more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per 

year beginning on January 2, 2011. This 

is the date when EPA’s recently 

promulgated LDVR takes effect, 

imposing control requirements for the 

first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If this 

January 2, 2011, date were to pass 

without the Tailoring Rule being in 

effect, PSD requirements would apply to 

GHG emissions at the 100/250 tpy 

applicability levels provided under a 

literal reading of the CAA as of that 

date. From that point forward, a source 

owner proposing to construct any new 

major source that emits at or higher than 

the applicability levels (and which 

therefore may be referred to as a ‘‘major’’ 

source) or modify any existing major 

source in a way that would increase 

GHG emissions would need to obtain a 

permit under the PSD program that 

addresses these emissions before 

construction or modification could 

begin. 

Under these circumstances, many 

small sources would be burdened by the 

costs of the individualized PSD control 

technology requirements and permit 

applications that the PSD provisions, 

absent streamlining, require. 

Additionally, state and local permitting 

authorities would be burdened by the 

extraordinary number of these permit 

applications, which are orders of 

magnitude greater than the current 

inventory of permits and would vastly 

exceed the current administrative 

resources of the permitting authorities. 

Permit gridlock would result since the 

permitting authorities would likely be 

able to issue only a tiny fraction of the 

permits requested. 

The Tailoring Rule’s thresholds are 

based on CO2e for the aggregate sum of 

six GHGs that constitute the pollutant 

that will be subject to regulation, which 

we refer to as GHG.5 These gases are: 

CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 

Thus, in EPA’s Tailoring Rule, EPA 

provided that PSD applicability is based 

on the quantity that results when the 

mass emissions of each of these gases is 

multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and 

then summed for all six gases. However, 

EPA further provided that in order for 

a source’s GHG emissions to trigger PSD 

requirements, the quantity of the GHG 

emissions must equal or exceed both the 

applicability thresholds established in 

the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and 

the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 

tpy on a mass basis.6 Similarly, in order 

for a source to be subject to the PSD 

modification requirements, the source’s 

net GHG emissions increase must 

exceed the applicable significance level 

on a CO2e basis and must also result in 

a net mass increase of the constituent 

gases combined. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted 

regulatory language codifying the phasein approach. As explained in that 

rulemaking, many state, local and tribal 

area programs will likely be able to 

immediately implement the approach 

without rule or statutory changes by, for 

example, interpreting the term ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ that is part of the 

applicability provisions for PSD 

permitting. EPA has requested 

permitting authorities to confirm that 

they will follow this implementation 

approach for their programs, and if they 

cannot, then EPA has requested that 

they notify the Agency so that we can 

take appropriate follow-up action to 

narrow federal approval of their 

programs before GHGs become subject 

to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011.7

On July 30, 2010, Tennessee provided a 

letter to EPA confirming that the State 

has the authority to issue PSD permits 

governing GHG emissions as of January 

2, 2011, but explaining that Tennessee 

needs to amend its SIP to enable it to 

implement the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. See the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking for a copy of 

Tennessee’s letter. 

3. What is the GHG SIP call? 

By Federal Register notice dated 

September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the 

GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with 

the companion GHG FIP rulemaking 

published at the same time, EPA took 

steps to ensure that in the 13 States that 

do not appear to have authority to issue 

PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources at 

present, either the state or EPA will 

have the authority to issue such permits 

by January 2, 2011. EPA explained that 

although for most states, either the State 

or EPA is already authorized to issue 

PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources 

as of that date, our preliminary 

information shows that these 13 States 

have EPA-approved PSD programs that 

do not appear to include GHG-emitting 

sources and therefore do not appear to 

authorize these States to issue PSD 

permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68271 

8As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 

FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its 

finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call 

for the 13 listed states by December 1, 2010. EPA 

requested that the states for which EPA is proposing 

a SIP call identify the deadline—between 3 weeks 

and 12 months from the date of signature of the 

final SIP Call—that they would accept for 

submitting their corrective SIP revision. 

9Tennessee’s submittal also revises regulation 

1200–03–09–.02(11)—Operating Permits, however, 

these definitions relate to Title V and are not 

included in the SIP. As such, EPA is not proposing 

to take action to approve Tennessee’s update to this 

regulation in this rulemaking. 

proposed to find that these 13 States’ 

SIPs are substantially inadequate to 

comply with CAA requirements and, 

accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP 

Call to require a SIP revision that 

applies their SIP PSD programs to GHGemitting sources. In the companion 

GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a 

FIP that would give EPA authority to 

apply EPA’s PSD program to GHGemitting sources in any State that is 

unable to submit a corrective SIP 

revision by its deadline. Tennessee was 

not one of the States for which EPA 

proposed a SIP Call. 

III. What is the relationship between 

today’s proposed action and EPA’s 

proposed GHG SIP call and GHG FIP? 

As noted above, by notice dated 

September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the 

GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA 

proposed a FIP to apply in any state that 

is unable to submit, by its deadline, a 

SIP revision to ensure that the state has 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources.8 As discussed in 

Section IV of this rulemaking, 

Tennessee interprets its current PSD 

regulations as providing them with the 

authority to regulate GHGs, and as such, 

Tennessee is not included on the list of 

areas for the proposed SIP call. 

Additionally, Tennessee would not be 

subject to the FIP to implement GHG for 

PSD applicability. Tennessee’s August 

17, 2010, proposed SIP revision (the 

subject of this rulemaking) merely 

modifies Tennessee’s SIP to establish 

appropriate thresholds for determining 

which stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions under the PSD program of the 

CAA. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Tennessee’s SIP revision? 

On August 30, 2010, TDEC provided 

a revision to Tennessee’s SIP to EPA for 

parallel processing and eventual 

approval. This revision to Tennessee’s 

SIP is necessary because without it, PSD 

requirements would apply, as of January 

2, 2011, at the 100- or 250-tpy levels 

provided under the CAA. This would 

greatly increase the number of required 

permits, imposing undue costs on small 

sources; which would overwhelm 

Tennessee’s permitting resources and 

severely impair the function of the 

program. 

The State of Tennessee’s August 30, 

2010, proposed SIP revision establishes 

thresholds for determining which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

Tennessee’s PSD program. Specifically, 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, proposed 

SIP revision includes changes to 

Tennessee’s Air Quality Regulations, 

1200–03–09–.01(4)—Construction and 

Operating Permits, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 9 and addresses 

the thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability. 

Tennessee is currently a SIP-approved 

state for the PSD program, and has 

incorporated EPA’s 2002 NSR reform 

revisions for PSD into its SIP. In a letter 

provided to EPA on July 30, 2010, 

Tennessee notified EPA of its 

interpretation that the State currently 

has the authority to regulate GHGs 

under TDEC’s SIP-approved Rule 1200– 

03–09–.01(4)—Construction and 

Operating Permits, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, which 

includes the preconstruction review 

program required by Part C of title I of 

the CAA. The current Tennessee 

program (adopted prior to the 

promulgation of EPA’s Tailoring Rule) 

applies to major stationary sources 

(having the potential to emit at least 100 

tpy or 250 tpy or more of a regulated 

NSR pollutant, depending on the type of 

source) or modifications constructing in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable with respect to the 

NAAQS. 

EPA performed a line-by-line review 

of the proposed change to Tennessee’s 

SIP-approved PSD regulations (1200– 

03–09–.01(4)—Construction and 

Operating Permits, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration) and 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed change is consistent with (and 

substantively the same as) the change to 

the federal provisions made by EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA 

preliminarily determined that this 

revision to Tennessee’s SIP is consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., 

Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, SIP 

revision, relating to PSD requirements 

for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, proposed 

SIP revision establishes appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability with respect to new 

and modified GHG-emitting sources in 

accordance with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision is 

approvable because it is in accordance 

with the CAA and EPA regulations 

regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the State’s law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the State’s law. For that reason, this 

proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

68272 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28009 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0691–201045, FRL– 

9222–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a draft revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by Kentucky’s Energy and Environment 

Cabinet, through the Kentucky Division 

for Air Quality (KDAQ), to EPA on 

August 5, 2010, for parallel processing. 

The proposed SIP revision makes two 

changes impacting the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky’s New Source Review 

(NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the 

proposed revision provides the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky with 

authority to regulate greenhouse gas 

(GHG) under its PSD program. Second, 

the proposed SIP revision establishes 

appropriate emission thresholds for 

determining which new stationary 

sources and modification projects 

become subject to Kentucky’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions. The first component of the 

proposed revision is necessary because 

the Commonwealth of Kentucky is 

required to apply its PSD program to 

GHG-emitting sources, and unless it 

does so (or unless EPA promulgates a 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) to do 

so), such sources will be unable to 

receive preconstruction permits and 

therefore may not be able to construct or 

modify. The second component is 

necessary because without it, on January 

2, 2011, PSD requirements would apply 

at the 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) 

levels provided under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act), which would overwhelm 

Kentucky’s permitting resources. EPA is 

proposing approval of the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky’s August 5, 

2010, SIP revision relating to PSD 

requirements for GHG-emitting sources 

because the Agency has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is in accordance with the CAA 

and EPA regulations regarding PSD 

permitting for GHGs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0691, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0691, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0691.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail, information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Kentucky SIP, 

contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS