11744 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 52.1670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK STATE REGULATIONS

New York State regulation State effective 

date Latest EPA approval date Comments 

Title 6: 

* * * * * * * 

Part 217, Motor Vehicle Emissions: 

Subpart 217–1, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Until December 31, 2010.12/5/10 2/28/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins] 

Subpart 217–4, Inspection and Maintenance Program Audits Until December 31, 2010.12/5/10 2/28/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins] 

Subpart 217–6, Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Beginning January 1, 2011.12/5/10 2/28/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins] 

* * * * * * * 

Title 15: Part 79, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations’’ 

Sections 79.1–79.15, 79.17, 79.20, 79.21, 79.24, 79.25 ................................ 12/29/10 2/28/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins] 

[FR Doc. 2012–4470 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0696–201202; FRL– 

9635–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department of 

Environmental Conservation (TDEC), 

Air Pollution Control Division, to EPA 

on August 30, 2010, for parallel 

processing. TDEC submitted the final 

version of this SIP revision on January 

11, 2012. The SIP revision approved by 

today’s action adopts into Tennessee’s 

SIP rules impacting the regulation of 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) under 

Tennessee’s New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. Specifically, the SIP 

revision establishes appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new stationary sources and 

modification projects become subject to 

Tennessee’s PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions. This 

rule incorporates state law changes into 

the federally approved SIP, and 

specifically clarifies the applicable 

thresholds in the Tennessee SIP for 

GHG PSD requirements. EPA is 

approving Tennessee’s January 11, 2012, 

SIP revision because the Agency has 

made the determination that this SIP 

revision is in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA 

regulations, including regulations 

pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs. 

Additionally, EPA is responding to 

adverse comments received on EPA’s 

November 5, 2010, proposed approval of 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, draft SIP 

revision. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0696. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Tennessee 

SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: bradley.

twunjala@epa.gov. For information 

regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact 

Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits 

Section, at the same address above. Ms. 

Abrams’ telephone number is (404) 562– 

9185; email address: abrams.heather@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

III. What is the effect of this final action? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11745 

1 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

2 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

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

3 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

4 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Sources in State 

Implementation Plans.’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 

2010). 

6See Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, GHG draft SIP 

submittal cover letter Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0696–0002. 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

are distinct from one another, establish 

the overall framework for today’s final 

action on the Tennessee SIP. Four of 

these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,1 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 2 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 3 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ 4 Taken together, and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. 

On August 30, 2010, in response to 

the Tailoring Rule and earlier GHGrelated EPA rules, 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. 

Subsequently, on November 5, 2010, 

EPA published a proposed rulemaking 

to approve Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, 

SIP revision under parallel processing. 

See 75 FR 68265. Specifically, 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, draft SIP 

revision includes changes to TDEC’s Air 

Quality Regulations, Chapter 1200–03– 

09–.01(4)—Construction and Operating 

Permits, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration. The changes to Chapter 

1200–03–09–.01(4)—Construction and 

Operating Permits, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration address the 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability. Detailed background 

information and EPA’s rationale for the 

proposed approval are provided in 

EPA’s November 5, 2010, Federal 

Register notice. 

On December 30, 2010, EPA 

published a final rule which narrowed 

its previous approval of PSD programs 

as applicable to GHG-emitting sources 

in SIPs for 24 states, including 

Tennessee.5 See 75 FR 82536 (PSD 

Narrowing Rule). Specifically, in the 

PSD Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its 

previous approval of Tennessee’s SIP to 

the extent it applied PSD to GHGemitting sources below the thresholds in 

the final Tailoring Rule. 

The effect of the PSD Narrowing Rule 

on the approved Tennessee SIP was to 

establish that new and modified sources 

are subject to PSD permitting 

requirements for their GHG emissions 

only if they emit GHGs at or above the 

Tailoring Rule’s emission thresholds. As 

a result of today’s action approving 

Tennessee’s adoption of the appropriate 

GHG permitting thresholds into its SIP, 

paragraph (d) in 40 CFR 52.2222, as 

included in EPA’s Narrowing Rule, is no 

longer necessary. Thus, today’s action 

also amends 40 CFR 52.2222 to remove 

this unnecessary regulatory language. 

EPA’s November 5, 2010, proposed 

approval was contingent upon 

Tennessee providing EPA with a final 

SIP revision that was not changed 

significantly from the revision proposed 

for approval by EPA in the November 5, 

2010, proposed rulemaking. See 75 FR 

68265. Tennessee provided its final SIP 

revision on January 11, 2012. There are 

minor differences between Tennessee’s 

draft and final SIP submittals due to 

changes made by TDEC in response to 

comments made by EPA during the 

public comment period.6 A summary of 

the changes is provided below. 

First, TDEC chose not to adopt a 

proposed revision to the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ at rule 1200–03–09– 

.01(4)(b)24(ii), which would have added 

a cross-reference to the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation.’’ The proposed 

change was not necessary to incorporate 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds into 

Tennessee’s SIP, and Tennessee’s 

existing regulatory language at rule 

1200–03–09–.01(4)(b)24(ii) (which 

remains unchanged) is consistent with 

EPA’s regulations. The second 

difference between the draft and final 

SIP revision was the correction of a 

typographical error in draft rule 1200– 

03–09–.01(4)(b)46(v) (changing the 

citation to ‘‘subpart (iv)(b)47(iv)’’ to 

‘‘subpart (iv)’’). There are no other 

differences between Tennessee’s August 

30, 2010, draft SIP revision, and the 

final SIP revision submitted on January 

11, 2012. 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on the November 5, 2010, proposed 

rulemaking to approve revisions to 

Tennessee’s SIP. One set of comments, 

provided by the Sierra Club, was in 

favor of EPA’s November 5, 2010, 

proposed action. The other set of 

comments, provided by the Air 

Permitting Forum, raised concerns with 

final action on EPA’s November 5, 2010, 

proposed action. A full set of the 

comments provided by both the Sierra 

Club and Air Permitting Forum 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Commenter’’) is provided in the docket 

for today’s final action. The comments 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0696. A summary of the adverse 

comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Generally, the adverse comments fall 

into four categories. First, the 

Commenter asserts that PSD 

requirements cannot be triggered by 

GHGs. Second, the Commenter 

expresses concerns regarding a footnote 

in the November 5, 2010, proposal 

describing EPA’s previously announced 

intention to narrow its prior approval of 

some SIPs to ensure that sources with 

GHG emissions that are less than the 

Tailoring Rule’s thresholds will not be 

obligated under federal law to obtain 

PSD permits prior to a SIP revision 

incorporating those thresholds. The 

Commenter explains that the planned 

SIP approval narrowing action—which 

has now resulted in the PSD Narrowing 

Rule—‘‘is illegal.’’ Third, the 

Commenter states that EPA has failed to 

meet applicable statutory and executive 

order review requirements. Lastly, the 

Commenter states: ‘‘EPA should 

explicitly state in any final rule that the 

continued enforceability of these 

provisions in the Tennessee SIP is 

limited to the extent to which the 

federal requirements remain 

enforceable.’’ EPA’s response to these 

four categories of comments is provided 

below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter asserts 

that PSD requirements cannot be 

triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the 

Commenter reiterates EPA’s statement 

that without the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, PSD will apply as of January 

2, 2011, to all stationary sources that 

emit or have the potential to emit, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
11746 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

depending on the source category, either 

100 or 250 tons of GHG per year. The 

Commenter also reiterates EPA’s 

statement that beginning January 2, 

2011, a source owner proposing to 

construct any new major source that 

emits at or above the GHG applicability 

levels, or modifies any existing major 

source that emits at or higher than the 

GHG applicability levels, or modify any 

existing major source in a way that 

would increase GHG emissions, would 

need to obtain a PSD permit that 

addresses these emissions before 

construction could begin. In raising 

concerns with the two aforementioned 

statements, the Commenter states: ‘‘[n]o 

area in the State of Tennessee has been 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is 

no national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore, GHGs 

cannot trigger PSD permitting.’’ The 

Commenter notes that it made this 

argument in detail in comments 

submitted to EPA on the Tailoring Rule 

and other related GHG rulemakings. The 

Commenter attached those previously 

submitted comments to its comments on 

the proposed rulemaking related to this 

action. Finally, the Commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA should immediately provide 

notice that it is now interpreting the Act 

not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and 

allow Tennessee to rescind that portion 

of its rules that would allow GHGs to 

trigger PSD.’’ 

Response 1: EPA established the 

requirement that PSD applies to all 

pollutants newly subject to regulation, 

including non-NAAQS pollutants such 

as GHGs, in earlier national rulemakings 

concerning the PSD program, and EPA 

has not re-opened that issue in this 

rulemaking. In an August 7, 1980, 

rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 

52710–52712, and 45 FR 52735, EPA 

stated that a ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

was one which emitted ‘‘any air 

pollutant subject to regulation under the 

Act’’ at or above the specified numerical 

thresholds; and defined a ‘‘major 

modification,’’ in general, as a physical 

or operational change that increased 

emissions of ‘‘any pollutant subject to 

regulation under the Act’’ by more than 

an amount that EPA variously termed as 

de minimis or significant. In addition, 

in EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform rule at 67 FR 

80186 and 67 FR 80240 (December 31, 

2002), EPA added to the PSD 

regulations the new definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ (currently 

codified at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 

CFR 51.166(a)(49)); noted that EPA 

added this term based on a request from 

a commenter to ‘‘clarify which 

pollutants are covered under the PSD 

program;’’ and explained that in 

addition to criteria pollutants for which 

a NAAQS has been established, ‘‘[t]he 

PSD program applies automatically to 

newly regulated NSR pollutants, which 

would include final promulgation of an 

NSPS [new source performance 

standard] applicable to a previously 

unregulated pollutant. See 67 FR 80240 

and 67 FR 80264. Among other things, 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ includes ‘‘[a]ny pollutant 

that otherwise is subject to regulation 

under the Act.’’ See 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); 40 CFR 

51.166(a)(49)(iv). 

EPA disagrees with the Commenter’s 

underlying premise that PSD 

requirements were not triggered for 

GHGs when GHGs became subject to 

regulation as of January 2, 2011. This 

has been well established and discussed 

in connection with prior EPA actions, 

including the Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration and the Tailoring Rule. 

In addition, EPA’s November 5, 2010, 

proposed rulemaking action provides 

the general basis for the Agency’s 

rationale that GHGs, while not a 

NAAQS pollutant, can trigger PSD 

permitting requirements. The November 

5, 2010, action also refers the reader to 

the preamble of the Tailoring Rule for 

further information on this rationale. In 

that rulemaking, EPA addressed at 

length the comment that PSD can be 

triggered only by pollutants subject to 

the NAAQS, and concluded such an 

interpretation of the Act would 

contravene Congress’ unambiguous 

intent. See 75 FR 31560–31562. Further 

discussion of EPA’s rationale for 

concluding that PSD requirements are 

triggered by non-NAAQS pollutants 

such as GHGs appears in the Tailoring 

Rule Response-to-Comments document 

(‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comments’’), pp. 

34–41; and in EPA’s response to 

motions for a stay filed in the litigation 

concerning those rules (‘‘EPA’s 

Response to Motions for Stay,’’ 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. 

EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 09–1322 (and 

consolidated cases)), at pp. 47–59, and 

are incorporated by reference here. 

These documents have been placed in 

the docket for today’s action and can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0696. 

Comment 2: The Commenter 

expresses concerns regarding a footnote 

in which EPA describes its previously 

announced intention to narrow its prior 

approval of some SIPs. In the footnote, 

EPA explained that such narrowing 

would ensure that sources with GHG 

emissions that are less than the 

Tailoring Rule’s thresholds are not 

obligated under federal law to obtain 

PSD permits during any gap between 

the effective date of GHG-permitting 

requirements (January 2, 2011) and the 

date that a SIP is revised to incorporate 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The 

Commenter asserts that EPA’s 

narrowing of its prior SIP approvals ‘‘is 

illegal.’’ Further, the Commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA has not proposed to narrow 

Tennessee’s SIP approval here and any 

such proposal must be explicit and 

address the action specifically made 

with respect to Tennessee. EPA cannot 

sidestep these important procedural 

requirements.’’ 

Response 2: While EPA disagrees with 

the Commenter’s assertion that the 

narrowing approach discussed in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule is illegal, the narrowing 

approach was not the subject of EPA’s 

November 5, 2010, proposed rulemaking 

to approve Tennessee’s August 11, 2010, 

SIP revision. Rather, the narrowing 

approach was the subject of a separate 

rulemaking, which was considered and 

finalized in the PSD Narrowing Rule, an 

action separate from today’s rulemaking. 

See 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). 

In today’s final action, EPA is acting to 

approve a SIP revision submitted by 

Tennessee, and is not otherwise 

narrowing its approval of prior 

submitted and approved provisions in 

the Tennessee SIP. Accordingly, the 

legality of the narrowing approach is not 

at issue in this rulemaking. 

Comment 3: The Commenter states 

that EPA has failed to meet applicable 

statutory and executive order review 

requirements. Specifically, the 

Commenter refers to the statutory and 

executive orders for the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, and Executive 

Order 13132 (Federalism). Additionally, 

the Commenter mentions that EPA has 

never analyzed the costs and benefits 

associated with triggering PSD for 

stationary sources in Tennessee, much 

less nationwide. 

Response 3: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s statement that EPA has 

failed to meet applicable statutory and 

executive order review requirements. As 

stated in EPA’s proposed approval of 

Tennessee’s August 30, 2010, draft SIP 

revision, this action merely approves 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Accordingly, EPA 

approval, in-and-of-itself, does not 

impose any new information collection 

burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) 

and (c), that would require additional 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 11747 

review under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. In addition, this SIP approval will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, beyond that which would be 

required by the state law requirements, 

so a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required under the RFA. Accordingly, 

this rule is appropriately certified under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Moreover, as 

this action approves pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandates or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, such that it 

would be subject to the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act. Finally, this 

action does not have federalism 

implications that would make Executive 

Order 13132 applicable because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

In summary, today’s rule is a routine 

approval of a SIP revision, approving 

state law, and does not impose any 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. To the extent these comments 

are directed more generally to the 

application of the statutory and 

executive order reviews to the required 

regulation of GHGs under PSD 

programs, these comments are irrelevant 

to the approval of state law in today’s 

action. However, EPA provided an 

extensive response to similar comments 

in promulgating the Tailoring Rule. EPA 

refers the Commenter to the sections in 

the Tailoring Rule entitled ‘‘VII. 

Comments on Statutory and Executive 

Order Reviews,’’ 75 FR 31601–31603, 

and ‘‘VI. What are the economic impacts 

of the final rule?,’’ 75 FR 31595–31601. 

EPA also notes that today’s action is not 

itself the trigger for regulation of GHGs. 

To the contrary, by helping to clarify 

that higher PSD applicability thresholds 

for GHGs apply than would otherwise 

be in effect under the Act, this 

rulemaking, as well as EPA’s Tailoring 

Rule, is part of the effort to provide 

relief to smaller GHG-emitting sources 

that would otherwise be subject to PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions. 

Comment 4: The Commenter states 

that ‘‘[i]f EPA proceeds with this action, 

it must condition approval on the 

continued validity of its determination 

that PSD can be triggered by or is 

applicable to GHGs.’’ Further, the 

Commenter remarks on the ongoing 

litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit. Specifically, 

regarding EPA’s determination that PSD 

can be triggered by GHGs or is 

applicable to GHGs, the Commenter 

mentions that ‘‘EPA should explicitly 

state in any final rule that continued 

enforceability of these provisions in the 

Tennessee SIP is limited to the extent to 

which the federal requirements remain 

enforceable.’’ The Commenter notes that 

if a stay is issued, these requirements 

should also be stayed. 

Response 4: EPA believes that it is 

most appropriate to take actions that are 

consistent with the federal regulations 

that are in place at the time the action 

is being taken. To the extent that any 

changes to federal regulations related to 

today’s action result from pending legal 

challenges or other actions, EPA will 

process appropriate SIP revisions in 

accordance with the procedures 

provided in the Act and EPA’s 

regulations. EPA notes that in an order 

dated December 10, 2010, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit denied motions to stay EPA’s 

regulatory actions related to GHGs. 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, 

Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09–1322, 10–1073, 10– 

1092 (and consolidated cases), Slip Op. 

at 3 (D.C. Cir. December 10, 2010) (order 

denying stay motions). 

III. What is the effect of this final 

action? 

Final approval of Tennessee’s January 

11, 2012, SIP revision will incorporate 

the GHG emission thresholds for PSD 

applicability set forth in EPA’s Tailoring 

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

adopted as state law, confirming that 

smaller GHG sources emitting less than 

these thresholds will not be subject to 

PSD permitting requirements for GHGs 

under the approved Tennessee SIP. 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is approving the changes made in 

Tennessee’s January 11, 2012, final SIP 

revision into Tennessee’s SIP. 

The changes to Tennessee’s SIPapproved PSD program that EPA is 

approving today are to Tennessee’s rules 

which have been formatted to conform 

to Tennessee’s SIP-approved PSD 

regulation 1200–03–09–.01(4)— 

Construction and Operating Permits, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

but in substantive content the rules that 

address the Tailoring Rule provisions 

are the same as the federal rules. EPA 

performed a line-by-line review of the 

proposed change to Tennessee’s SIPapproved PSD regulations 1200–03–09– 

.01(4)—Construction and Operating 

Permits, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and has determined that 

the change is consistent with (and 

substantively the same as) the change to 

the federal provisions made by EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA has 

determined that the January 11, 2012, 

revision to Tennessee’s SIP is consistent 

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

Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31561. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Tennessee’s January 11, 2012, SIP 

revision which includes updates to 

Tennessee’s air quality regulation 1200– 

03–09–.01(4)—Construction and 

Operating Permits, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration. Specifically, 

Tennessee’s January 11, 2012, SIP 

revision clarifies appropriate emissions 

thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability with respect to new or 

modified GHG-emitting sources in 

accordance with EPA’s Tailoring Rule, 

and incorporates those thresholds in the 

form in which they are stated in state 

law. EPA has made the determination 

that the January 11, 2012, SIP revision 

is approvable because it is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations including regulations 

pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs. 

As a result of EPA’s approval of 

Tennessee’s changes to its air quality 

regulations to adopt the appropriate 

thresholds for GHG permitting 

applicability into Tennessee’s SIP, 

paragraph (d) in Section 52.2222 of 40 

CFR part 52, as included in EPA’s 

Narrowing Rule, is no longer necessary. 

Therefore, this final action amends 

Section 52.2222 of 40 CFR part 52 by 

removing this unnecessary regulatory 

language. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
11748 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 30, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gases, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: January 27, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended 

under Chapter 1200–3–9 by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Section 1200–3–9–.01’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 1200–3–9 Construction and Operating Permits 

Section 1200–3–9–.01 ... Construction Permits .... 2/8/2011 2/28/2012 [Insert citation of publication].EPA is approving Tennessee’s May 28, 2009 

SIP revisions to Chapter 1200–3–9–.01 with 

the exception of the ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ calculation revision found at 

1200–3–9–.01(4)(b)45(i)(III), (4)(b)45(ii)(IV), 

(5)(b)1(xlvii)(I)(III) and (5)(b)1(xlvii)(II)(IV) of 

the submittal. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

§ 52.2222 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 52.2222 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d). 

[FR Doc. 2012–4471 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0995; FRL–9634–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of 

administrative change and correction. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and the 

Operating Permits Program. The first 

revision is an administrative change that 

codifies EPA’s prior approval of a SIP 

submission which re-numbers 

references to the St. Louis City Code 

local ordinance. The second revision is 

a correction which reinserts text that 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES