[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22533-22540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9073]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353; FRL-9659-2]


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 in part, and conditionally approve 
in part, 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) 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''). EPA is proposing to conditionally 
approve sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, 
submission because the current Tennessee SIP does not include 
provisions to comply with the requirements of this sub-element. With 
the exception of sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to 
determine that Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA 
on December 14, 2007, addressed all the required infrastructure 
elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbd9ded5d1dad6d2d595d7c2d5d4c9dadefbdecbda95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6b4b3b8bcb7bbbfb8f8baafb8b9a4b7b396b3a6b7f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13647261773d7d72707c606772537663723d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02756370662c6c63616d717663426772632c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 22534]]

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 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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 (FIP) 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. Tennessee has since 
met the completeness requirements for 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) and these 
infrastructure elements were federally approved on March 14, 2012. See 
77 FR 14976.
    Today's action is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally 
approve in part, Tennessee's infrastructure submission for which EPA 
made the completeness determination on March 27, 2008. This action is 
not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Tennessee's 
already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

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 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements 
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
    <bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 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 D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 
531 F.3d 896 (D.C. 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 interstate transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 
2011) (``the Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed in a separate action.

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

[[Page 22535]]

    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
    <bullet> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but 
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
    <bullet> 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 fine 
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 (SSM) at sources, that may be contrary to the 
CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; 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 <greek-i>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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 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

[[Page 22536]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for 
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
and the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 22537]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other 
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the 
submittals for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 the 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, but 
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\ 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).

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

[[Page 22538]]

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

    The Tennessee infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures: 
Several regulations within Tennessee's SIP provide Tennessee Air 
Pollution Control Regulations relevant to air quality control 
regulations. The regulations described below have been federally 
approved in the Tennessee SIP and include enforceable emission 
limitations and other control measures. Chapters 1200-3-1, General 
Provisions; 1200-3-3, Air Quality Standards; 1200-3-4, Open Burning; 
1200-3-18, Volatile Organic Compounds; and 1200-3-27, Nitrogen Oxides, 
of the Tennessee SIP establish emission limits for ozone and address 
the required control measures, means, and techniques for compliance 
with the ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
the provisions contained in these chapters and Tennessee's practices 
are adequate to protect the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of 
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM 
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, 
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the 
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to 
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's 
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states 
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to 
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the 
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or 
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to 
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: 
Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Requirements, Chapter 1200-3-12, 
Procedures for Ambient Sampling and Analysis, of the Tennessee SIP, 
along with the Tennessee Network Description and Ambient Air Monitoring 
Network Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring system in 
the State. Annually, EPA approves the ambient air monitoring network 
plan for the state agencies. On July 1, 2011, Tennessee submitted its 
plan to EPA. On October 24, 2011, EPA approved Tennessee's monitoring 
network plan. Tennessee's approved monitoring network plan can be 
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-
0353. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP 
and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and 
data system related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport 
provisions: Chapter 1200-9-.01(5) Growth Policy, of the Tennessee SIP 
outlines how the State will notify neighboring states of potential 
impacts from new or modified sources. Tennessee does not have any 
pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. Additionally, 
Tennessee has federally approved regulations in its SIP that satisfy 
the requirements for the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call. See 70 FR 76408 
(December 27, 2005). EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with 
the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international 
pollution abatement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: EPA is proposing two separate 
actions with respect to the sub-elements required pursuant to section 
110(a)(2)(E). Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation 
plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the State will have adequate 
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its 
implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements 
respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) 
necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or 
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation 
of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring 
adequate implementation of such plan provisions. As with the remainder 
of the infrastructure elements addressed by this notice, EPA is 
proposing to approve Tennessee's SIP as meeting the requirements of 
sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). With respect to sub-element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding state boards), EPA is proposing to approve 
in part, and conditionally approve in part, this sub-element. EPA's 
rationale for today's proposals respecting each sub-element is 
described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA notes that TDEC, through the Tennessee 
Air Pollution Control Board, is responsible for promulgating rules and 
regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards general policies, a 
system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other 
planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of TDEC's resources with 
respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to 
Tennessee on March 11, 2011, outlining 105 grant commitments and 
current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2010. The letter 
EPA submitted to Tennessee can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using 
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. Annually, states update these 
grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality 
planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were 
no outstanding issues for fiscal year 2009, therefore, Tennessee's 
grants were finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Tennessee has adequate resources for implementation 
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    With respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to 
approve in part, and to conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's 
infrastructure SIP as to this requirement. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
provides that infrastructure SIPs must require compliance with section 
128 of CAA requirements respecting State boards. Section 128, in turn, 
provides at subsection (a)(1) that each SIP shall require that any 
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be 
subject to the described public interest and income restrictions 
therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that any board or body, or the 
head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or 
enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of 
interest disclosure requirements. In this action, EPA is proposing to 
conditionally approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the applicable section 128(a)(1) 
requirements, and to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect the

[[Page 22539]]

applicable section 128(a)(2) requirements.
    EPA's proposed conditional approval of this sub-element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting the 128(a)(1) requirements is based upon a 
TDEC letter to EPA, dated March 28, 2012, which outlined TDEC's 
commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures into its SIP within 
one year to address the applicable portions of section 128(a)(1). The 
March 28, 2012, letter from TDEC to EPA can be accessed at 
www.regulations.gov using docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353.
    In Tennessee's March 28, 2012, commitment letter, TDEC committed to 
bring its SIP into conformity with section 128(a)(1) of the CAA by 
submitting SIP revisions that designate at least a majority of the 
positions on the State's Air Pollution Control Board \19\ as being 
subject to the ``public interest'' requirement. In addition, TDEC has 
committed to submitting SIP revisions establishing requirements to 
ensure that at least a majority of the members on the State's Air 
Pollution Control Board do not derive any significant portion of their 
income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders. In the 
March 28, 2012 commitment letter, TDEC describes that its planned 
restrictions related to the ``significant portion of income'' 
requirements of section 128 will include an exclusion for the official 
salaries of mayors of counties and municipalities, and for faculty 
members at institutions of higher learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The composition of Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Board 
is statutorily prescribed at Tennessee Code Annotated 68-201-104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the commitment 
from Tennessee must provide that the State will adopt the specified 
enforceable provisions and submit a revision to EPA for approval within 
one year from EPA's final conditional approval action. In its March 28, 
2012, letter, TDEC committed to adopt the above-specified enforceable 
provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into the SIP by no 
later than one year from the effective date of EPA's final conditional 
approval action for this requirement. Failure by the State to adopt 
these provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into the SIP 
within one year from the effective date of EPA's final conditional 
approval action would result in this proposed conditional approval 
being treated as a disapproval. Should that occur, EPA would provide 
the public with notice of such a disapproval in the Federal 
Register.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA notes that pursuant to section 110(k)(4), a conditional 
approval is treated as a disapproval in the event that a State fails 
to comply with its commitment. Notification of this disapproval 
action in the Federal Register is not subject to public notice and 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of Tennessee's formal commitment to correct 
deficiencies contained in the Tennessee SIP pertaining to section 128, 
EPA intends to move forward with finalizing the conditional approval of 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the section 128(a)(1) requirements 
consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Act. With respect to the 
remaining sub-elements of 110(a)(2)(E), EPA is proposing to approve 
these portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP. As such, EPA has made 
the preliminary determination that Tennessee has adequate resources for 
implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Tennessee's 
infrastructure submission describes how to establish requirements for 
compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for 
emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the 
State. TDEC uses these data to track progress towards maintaining the 
NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and 
general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission 
regulations and additional EPA requirements. These requirements are 
provided in Chapter 1200-3-10, Required Sampling, Recording and 
Reporting, of the Tennessee SIP.
    Additionally, Tennessee is required to submit emissions data to EPA 
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air 
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the 
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data 
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit 
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive 
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain 
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System 
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and 
their associated precursors--NO<INF>X</INF>, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, 
lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). Many states also voluntarily report emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants. Tennessee made its latest update to the NEI 
on December 31, 2011. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it 
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web 
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are 
adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency 
Episode Requirements, of the Tennessee SIP identifies air pollution 
emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. These criteria 
have previously been approved by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for 
emergency powers related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, TDEC 
is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as 
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Tennessee has the ability and 
authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a 
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. 
Specific to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Tennessee has provided the 
following submissions, including:
    <bullet> August 10, 2005, SIP Revision--(EPA approval, 70 FR 55559, 
September 22, 2005) Redesignation of the Montgomery County portion of 
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY 8-hour Ozone Area;
    <bullet> February 26, 2009, SIP Revision--(EPA approval, 75 FR 56, 
January 4, 2010) Redesignation of the Memphis, TN 8-hour Ozone Area;
    <bullet> July 14, 2010, SIP Revision--(EPA approval, 76 FR 12587, 
March 8, 2011) Redesignation of the Knoxville, TN 8-hour Ozone Area; 
and,
    <bullet> October 13, 2010, SIP Revision (EPA approval, 76 FR 5078, 
January 28, 2011) Nashville 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan.
    Tennessee has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to 
provide future SIP revisions related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
when necessary.
    8. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Chapter 1200-3-
9-.01(4)(k), Air Quality Models, of the Tennessee SIP specify that 
required air modeling be conducted in accordance

[[Page 22540]]

with 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' as 
incorporated into the Tennessee SIP. These standards demonstrate that 
Tennessee has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of 
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Additionally, Tennessee supports a regional effort to coordinate the 
development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for 
several NAAQS, including the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the 
Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Tennessee's air quality 
regulations and practices demonstrate that TDEC has the authority to 
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on 
ambient air quality of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately 
demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality and 
modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: As discussed above, Tennessee's 
SIP provides for the review of construction permits. Permitting fees in 
Tennessee are collected through the State's federally-approved title V 
fees program and consistent with Chapter 1200-03-26-.02, Permit-Related 
Fees, of the Tennessee Code. EPA has made the preliminary determination 
that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting 
fees related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities: Chapter 1200-3-9-.01(4)(k), Public Participation, of the 
Tennessee SIP requires that TDEC notify the public of an application, 
preliminary determination, the activity or activities involved in the 
permit action, any emissions change associated with any permit 
modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final 
permitting decision. By way of example, TDEC has recently worked 
closely with local political subdivisions during the development of its 
Transportation Conformity SIP, Regional Haze Implementation Plan, and 
Early Action Compacts. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with 
affected local entities related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when 
necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, with the exception of sub-element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee's 
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2007, 
addressed the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve in part and conditionally 
approve in part, Tennessee's SIP submission consistent with section 
110(k)(3) of the CAA.
    As described above, with the exception of sub-element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), TDEC has addressed the elements 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. With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (referencing 
section 128 of the CAA), EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP. On March 28, 2012, Tennessee submitted 
a letter requesting conditional approval of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In this 
letter, TDEC committed to adopt specific enforceable measures into its 
SIP and submit these revisions to EPA within one year of EPA's final 
rulemaking to address the applicable portions of section 128. EPA is 
also proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for the 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of sub-element 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because its December 14, 2007, submission is 
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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-9073 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>