```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 14 (Monday, January 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3213-3220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1220]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353-201122; FRL-9621-6]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the state implementation plan 
(SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), to 
demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state 
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly 
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. TDEC certified that the 
Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter 
referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). Tennessee's 
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, and 
clarified in a subsequent May 28, 2009, submission, addressed the 
required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 
however the subject of this notice is limited to infrastructure 
elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). All other applicable Tennessee 
infrastructure elements will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0353, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353,'' Regulatory Development Section, 
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0353. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements 
(C) and (J) of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' 
provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 3214]]

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was 
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856. 
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit 
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years 
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) 
requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions 
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However, 
intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created 
uncertainty about how to proceed and many states did not provide the 
required ``infrastructure'' SIP submission for these newly promulgated 
NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue 
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related 
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, 
among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing 
EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether 
each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. 
Subsequently, EPA received an extension of the date to complete this 
Federal Register notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to 
make the findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008. 
In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings 
for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as 
of January 7, 2008.
    On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled, 
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans; 
8-hour ozone NAAQS,'' making a finding that each state had submitted or 
failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program 
elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. For those states that did receive 
findings, such as Tennessee, the findings of failure to submit for all 
or a portion of a state's implementation plan established a 24-month 
deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan to address 
the outstanding SIP elements unless, prior to that time, the affected 
states submitted, and EPA approved, the required SIPs. However, the 
findings of failure to submit did not impose sanctions or set deadlines 
for imposing sanctions as described in section 179 of the CAA, because 
these findings do not pertain to the elements contained in the Title I 
part D plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 
110(a)(2)(I). Additionally, the findings of failure to submit for the 
infrastructure submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to section 
110(k)(5).
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are 
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon 
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). 
Tennessee's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on December 
14, 2007, and was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008, for all 
elements with the exception of 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Tennessee was 
among other states that received a finding of failure to submit because 
its infrastructure submission was not complete for elements (C) and (J) 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. Specifically, the 
Tennessee infrastructure submission did not address the part C 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program 
requirements promulgated in the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation 
Rule New Source Review (NSR) Update--Phase 2 final rule (hereafter 
referred to as the Ozone Implementation NSR Update) recognizing 
nitrogen oxide (NOx) as an ozone precursor. See 70 FR 71612, (November 
29, 2005). On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA for 
federal approval which included revisions to Chapter 1200-03-09 of the 
Tennessee NSR program that address changes promulgated in the Ozone 
Implementation NSR Update. On December 5, 2011, EPA proposed to approve 
Tennessee's May 28, 2009, SIP revision. See 76 FR 75845. EPA is moving 
forward with final action on Tennessee's May 28, 2009, SIP revision in 
an action separate from today's action. Today's action is proposing to 
approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for which EPA made the 
findings of failure to submit on March 27, 2008. This action is not 
approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Tennessee's SIP, 
once two separate proposed revisions have been incorporated, meets 
certain CAA requirements. As discussed further below, final approval of 
today's proposed rule is contingent upon the Agency first taking final 
action to approve Tennessee's Ozone Implementation NSR Update (76 FR 
75845) and PSD Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule Revision (75 FR 
68265). As such, final action approving Tennessee's infrastructure 
submission with respect to infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 
will not occur prior to those revisions being approved in the SIP.

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide 
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or 
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such 
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to 
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may 
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the 
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and 
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the 
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary 
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already 
contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically 
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) 
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone 
NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and 
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements 
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related 
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, 
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure 
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the 
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's 
October

[[Page 3215]]

2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not 
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area 
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area 
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These 
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) 
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required 
in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by 
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning 
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed 
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to 
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control 
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element 
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressed by 
Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On 
December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 
531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, EPA took final 
action to approve Tennessee's SIP revision, which was submitted to 
comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388 (August 20, 2007). In so doing, 
Tennessee's CAIR SIP revision addressed the interstate transport 
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has promulgated a new 
rule to address the interstate transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 
2011) (``the Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the 
DC Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
will be addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the 
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's 
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements 
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but 
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure 
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country. 
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns 
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive 
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP 
submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving 
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other 
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part 
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing 
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA 
and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); and (ii) 
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions 
limits with limited public process or without requiring further 
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (director's 
discretion). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for 
which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address the 
issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source 
review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the 
CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minor source 
NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be 
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement 
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 
(June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). In light of the comments, EPA believes 
that its statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 
with respect to these four individual issues should be explained in 
greater depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same 
position with respect to these four substantive issues in this action 
on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 
Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated 
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse 
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that 
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this 
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this 
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate 
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these 
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice 
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of 
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not 
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under 
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP 
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of 
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger 
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted 
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP 
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess 
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further 
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such 
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for 
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor 
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear 
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit 
re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four 
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on 
the infrastructure SIP for Tennessee.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted 
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM 
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts 
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA 
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context 
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the 
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for 
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any 
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. 
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not 
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive 
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with 
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP 
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it 
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP 
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to 
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) 
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from 
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain 
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four 
potential

[[Page 3216]]

substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed separately from 
actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA 
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP 
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and 
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, 
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA 
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states 
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as 
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the 
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of 
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a 
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other 
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions 
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, 
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility 
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program 
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host 
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific 
matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general 
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2) 
provides more details concerning the required contents of these 
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory 
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required 
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of 
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal 
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions, 
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and 
substantive provisions.\6\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2) 
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require 
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through 
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must 
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under 
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a substantive program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section 
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to 
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event 
of such an emergency.
    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure 
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent 
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require 
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic 
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See ``Rule To 
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP 
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long 
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally 
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for 
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\8\ This illustrates that 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be 
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA 
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of 
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without 
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate 
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with 
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with 
different schedules.\9\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that 
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into 
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS 
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere 
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's 
implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of 
section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the 
same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant 
infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the 
monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section 
110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be 
necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an 
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might 
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to 
an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett, 
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division 
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required 
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2), 
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements 
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by 
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear 
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section 
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements 
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D 
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be 
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type 
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) 
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA 
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the 
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent 
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has 
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes 
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP 
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in 
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in 
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for 
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for 
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
and

[[Page 3217]]

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Within this guidance document, EPA 
described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the 
Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs, which 
it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including 
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment 
and maintenance of the standards.'' \12\ As further identification of 
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the 
guidance document included a short description of the various elements 
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of 
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such 
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic 
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an 
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief 
description of the required elements.'' \13\ EPA also stated its belief 
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self 
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should 
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA 
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general 
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the 
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each 
State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine 
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic 
structure of the State's implementation plans for the NAAQS in 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett, 
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \12\ Id., at page 2.
    \13\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \14\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by 
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues 
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and 
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in 
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be 
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed 
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations 
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure 
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but 
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific 
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007 
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among 
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the 
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific 
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues 
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues 
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform 
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the 
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended 
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to 
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context 
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make 
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP 
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA 
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP 
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies 
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states 
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues 
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as 
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to 
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as 
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds 
true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' 
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25, 
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP 
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for 
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic 
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. 
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and 
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include 
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the 
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to 
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are 
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus 
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP 
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's 
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS because 
of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for 
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in 
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\16\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\

[[Page 3218]]

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure 
SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential 
existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent 
reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for 
action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate 
to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's 
discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure 
SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 
bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a 
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific 
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of 
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 76 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors 
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See 
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). 
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) 
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) 
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \18\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado 
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion 
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 
110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 
(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements (C) 
and (J) of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    The Tennessee infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to elements (C) and (J), as 
described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures 
including review of proposed new sources. In this action, EPA is 
proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the 
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to 
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and 
Operating Permits, of Tennessee's SIP pertains to the construction of 
any new major stationary source or any project at an existing major 
stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or 
unclassifiable. This regulation addresses many of the infrastructure 
element 110(a)(2)(C) requirements, however, as discussed below, there 
are two pending revisions to the Tennessee SIP (including revisions to 
Chapter 1200-3-9) that are necessary to meet the requirements of 
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C). These two revisions are related to 
the Ozone Implementation NSR Update and the ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR 
31514).
    The first pending revision to the Tennessee SIP (Ozone 
Implementation NSR Update revisions) was submitted by TDEC on May 28, 
2009. That revision modifies provisions of the state's SIP at Chapter 
1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits. In addition to meeting 
the requirements of the Ozone Implementation NSR Update, these 
revisions are also necessary to address portions of the infrastructure 
SIP requirements described at element 110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, the 
May 28, 2009, SIP revisions address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update 
requirements to include NOx as an ozone precursor for permitting 
purposes. These revisions involve changes to major source thresholds 
for sources in certain classes of nonattainment areas, changes to 
offset ratios for marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme 
ozone nonattainment areas, provisions addressing offset requirements 
for facilities that shut down or curtail operation, and a requirement 
stating that NOx emissions are ozone precursors. On December 5, 2011, 
EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's May 28, 2009, submission. See 76 
FR 75845. EPA will take final action on these regulations in a separate 
action from this notice.
    The second pending rulemaking pertains to revisions to the PSD 
program promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule. On November 5, 2010, EPA 
published a rulemaking proposing to approve Tennessee's PSD GHG 
Tailoring Rule revision,\19\ which was submitted to EPA on August 30, 
2010, for parallel processing.\20\ See 75 FR 68265. This proposed 
revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining 
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject 
to Tennessee's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions, and 
thereby addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in 
Tennessee. On January 11, 2012, EPA received Tennessee's PSD GHG 
Tailoring Rule revision final submittal. EPA will take final action on 
these regulations in a separate action from this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final rulemaking, 
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans: Final Rule'' (75 FR 82536), which narrowed its previous 
approval of PSD programs as applicable to GHG-emitting sources in 
SIPs for 24 states, including Tennessee. Specifically, in the PSD 
Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its previous approval of Tennessee's 
SIP to the extent it applied PSD requirements to GHG-emitting 
sources below the thresholds described in the final Tailoring Rule. 
The provisions of SIPs from which EPA withdrew its approval are 
treated as submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by EPA. 
Once a state submits a SIP revision for EPA's approval to 
incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, EPA will treat the 
approval as removing the no-longer-approved provisions. See 75 FR at 
82540.
    \20\ Tennessee requested parallel processing of this SIP 
revision because on the date of its submittal, the revision was not 
yet state-effective. Under parallel processing an 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 then proceeds with a federal rulemaking to add to or 
revise the SIP during approximately the same time during which the 
state is holding its public hearing. The state and EPA thus provide 
for public comment periods on both the state and federal action in 
parallel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both of these proposed SIP revisions \21\ address requisite 
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), therefore, today's 
action to propose approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) 
is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each of these 
pending revisions into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding 
today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) 
will not occur prior to final approval of these related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA's proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee's PSD/NSR 
regulations which address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update 
requirements and (2) Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions 
which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in 
Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75 FR 68265).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that today's action is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent 
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. 
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that 
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA 
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with 
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in 
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to 
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states 
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets 
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable 
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to 
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and 
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures 
including review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS.

[[Page 3219]]

    2. 110(a)(2)(J). In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve 
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect 
to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program 
in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation 
requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of 
section 127; and the PSD and visibility protection requirements of part 
C of the Act.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government 
officials: Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits, as well 
as the Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation 
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control 
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide 
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be 
affected by SIP development activities. Tennessee adopted state-wide 
consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation 
conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations 
associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs. 
Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the 
consultation procedures requires TDEC to consult with federal, state 
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the 
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved 
Tennessee's consultation procedures on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492). EPA 
has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and 
practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials 
related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: TDEC 
has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of ozone and 
other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web 
site with ground level ozone alerts, http://tn.gov/environment/apc/ozone/. Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency Episode Requirements, requires 
that TDEC notify the public of any air pollution episode or NAAQS 
violation. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's 
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide 
public notification related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when 
necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (Part C) PSD and visibility protection: Tennessee 
demonstrates its authority to regulate new and modified sources of 
ozone precursors, volatile organic compounds, and NOx to assist in the 
protection of air quality in Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and 
Operating Permits. As with infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), 
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance with 
applicable provisions of the PSD program described in part C of the 
Act. Accordingly, the pending EPA actions on the Ozone Implementation 
NSR Update and GHG Tailoring Rule revisions to Tennessee's SIP are 
likewise prerequisites to today's proposed action to approve the 
State's infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See the discussion for 
element 110(a)(2)(C) above for a description of these two pending 
revisions to the Tennessee SIP.
    Both of these proposed SIP revisions \22\ address requisite 
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility 
protection), therefore, today's action to propose approval of 
infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility protection) 
is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each of these 
pending revisions into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding 
today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) 
(PSD and visibility protection) will not occur prior to final approval 
of these related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA's proposed approval of: (1) Tennessee's PSD/NSR 
regulations which addresses the Ozone Implementation NSR Update 
requirements and (2) Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions 
which addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in 
Tennessee (See 76 FR 75845 and 75 FR 68265).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility 
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and 
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which 
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of 
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program 
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is 
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) 
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the 
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established, 
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part 
C. Tennessee has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the 
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze 
and best available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR 
51.308. These revisions are currently under review and will be acted on 
in a separate action. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's 
ability to implement PSD programs and to provide for visibility 
protection related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, following final approval of the proposed 
revisions to the Tennessee SIP regarding the Ozone Implementation NSR 
Update and the PSD GHG Tailoring Rule Revision, TDEC will have 
addressed elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) 
SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007, guidance to ensure 
that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 
maintained in Tennessee. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's 
infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for these 
elements, contingent upon the final approval of those revisions, 
because its December 12, 2007, and May 28, 2009, submissions will then 
be consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

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. 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 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or

[[Page 3220]]

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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-1220 Filed 1-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```