This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

71568 

Vol. 77, No. 232 

Monday, December 3, 2012 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 240 

[Release No. 34–68071A; File No. S7–08– 

12] 

RIN 3235–AL12 

Capital, Margin, and Segregation 

Requirements for Security-Based 

Swap Dealers and Major SecurityBased Swap Participants and Capital 

Requirements for Broker-Dealers; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: Technical corrections are 

being made to the Commission’s Release 

No. 34–68071, which proposed capital 

and margin requirements for securitybased swap dealers (‘‘SBSDs’’) and 

major security-based swap participants 

(‘‘MSBSPs’’), segregation requirements 

for SBSDs, and notification 

requirements with respect to segregation 

for SBSDs and MSBSPs, as well as 

increases to the minimum net capital 

requirements for broker-dealers 

permitted to use the alternative internal 

model-based method for computing net 

capital. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila Dombal Swartz, Special Counsel, 

at (202) 551–5545, or Valentina Minak 

Deng, Attorney, at (202) 551–5778, 

Division of Trading and Markets, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 

20549–7010. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Specifically, corrections are being made 

to the table in footnote 172 on page 

70233 and paragraph 6.c. of page 70332 

of volume 77 of the Federal Register. 

The following corrections are hereby 

made to Release No. 34–68071 (October 

18, 2012), which was published in FR 

Doc. 2012–26164 and appeared on page 

70214 of the Federal Register on 

November 23, 2012 (77 FR 70214): 

1. In footnote 172 in the first column 

of page 70233, the first row of the table, 

which currently reads ‘‘Time to 

Maturity and Deduction’’, is corrected to 

read: ‘‘Time to Maturity Category— 

Deduction’’. 

2. In the third column of page 70332, 

paragraph 6.c. identifying an 

amendment to 17 CFR 240.15c3– 

1e(c)(2)(ii), which currently reads ‘‘In 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing the phrase 

‘‘$5 billion’’ and adding in its place the 

phrase ‘‘$6 billion’’; and’’, is corrected 

to read: ‘‘In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), 

removing the phrase ‘‘less than 50%’’ 

and adding in its place the phrase ‘‘less 

than or equal to 50%’’; and’’. 

Dated: November 27, 2012. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29048 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0237; FRL–9757–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Interstate Transport Infrastructure 

Requirements (Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration) for the 2008 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

submitted by the State of Tennessee 

through the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 

This proposal pertains to the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) (concerning the PM2.5 increments) 

for the for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA 

requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. TDEC certified that 

the Tennessee SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Tennessee (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). EPA is proposing to 

supplement the earlier proposed 

approval related to sections related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) (concerning the PM2.5 increments) 

by proposing conditional approval of 

the State’s infrastructure submission 

based upon a October 4, 2012, 

commitment by the State to submit a 

SIP revision to address current 

deficiencies in these sections. EPA is 

proposing to conditionally approve 

these sections related to PSD because 

the current Tennessee SIP does not 

include provisions to fully comply with 

the requirements of these sections. All 

of the other required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS are being addressed in a 

separate rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 24, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0237, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0237,’’ 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–2012– 

0237. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71569 

1Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS will be addressed through a separate 

rulemaking. 

2Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four 

requirements referred to as prongs 1 through 4. 

Prongs 1 and 2 are provided at section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); prongs 3 and 4 are provided at 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

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 sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8- 

hour average concentrations. EPA 

revised the level of the 8-hour standard 

to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 77 

FR 16436. 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 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA no later than March 

2011. 

Midwest Environmental Defense and 

Sierra Club submitted a complaint on 

November 20, 2011, related to EPA’s 

failure to issue findings of failure to 

submit related to the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. On December 13, 2011, and 

March 6, 2012, Midwest Environmental 

Defense and Sierra Club submitted 

amended complaints for failure to 

promulgate prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) regulations within 

two years and failure to approve or 

disapprove SIP submittals, and to 

remove claims regarding states that have 

submitted SIPs for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, respectively. Tennessee 

was among the states named in the 

November 2011 complaint, and the 

December 2011 and March 2012 

amended complaints. Specifically, the 

plaintiffs claim that EPA has failed to 

perform its mandatory duty by not 

approving in full, disapproving in full, 

or approving in part and disapproving 

in part Tennessee’s 2008 ozone 

infrastructure SIP addressing sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(H) and (J)–(M) by no later 

than April 19, 2011. 

Tennessee’s infrastructure submission 

was received by EPA on October 19, 

2009, for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The submission was 

determined to be complete on April 19, 

2010. On July 3, 2012, Tennessee 

submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing 

the portion of its October 19, 2009, SIP 

submission that purported to address 

the requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport. On 

August 22, 2012, EPA proposed 

approval of Tennessee’s 2008 8-hour 

ozone infrastructure SIP, with the 

exception of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).1 See 77 FR 50651. The 

proposed approval included sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

110(a)(2)(J); however, it was 

subsequently found that Tennessee’s 

SIP did not contain all of the requisite 

provisions in its SIP necessary to fully 

approve these elements. The deficient 

portion of Tennessee’s SIP pertains to 

PM2.5 PSD increments. 

On October 4, 2012, Tennessee 

submitted a request for conditional 

approval of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 

PSD requirements (hereafter referred to 

as prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)),2 and 

110(a)(2)(J) to address the SIP 

deficiencies concerning PM2.5 PSD 

increments for these elements. Today’s 

action proposes conditional approval for 

these sections based upon a 

commitment by Tennessee to submit the 

necessary SIP revisions to address PM2.5

PSD increments for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3Two 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). 

4This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

5Today’s proposed rulemaking does not address 

element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (Interstate Transport) for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Interstate transport 

requirements were formerly addressed by 

Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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)(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 vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of 

Appeals. As a result of both the remand of CAIR 

and vacatur of the Transport Rule, Tennessee has 

not yet made a submission to address interstate 

transport. EPA’s action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 

addressed in a separate action. 

6This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not relevant 

to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 2008 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 the 

1997 8-hour 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.3

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures.4

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.5

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.6

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

EPA notes that this rulemaking does 

not address four substantive issues that 

are not integral to the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission. These 

four issues are: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources (SSM), that may 

be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (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); (iii) 

existing provisions for minor source 

new source review (NSR) programs that 

may be inconsistent with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (minor source NSR); and, (iv) 

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). 

Instead, EPA has indicated that it has 

other authority to address any such 

existing SIP defects in other 

rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed 

rationale for why these four substantive 

issues are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found in EPA’s June 11, 2012, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

Tennessee 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ in the section entitled, 

‘‘Scope of Infrastructure SIPs’’ (See 77 

FR 34306). It can also be found in EPA’s 

August 22, 2012, proposed rule entitled, 

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ in the section 

entitled, ‘‘Scope of Infrastructure SIPs.’’ 

See 77 FR 50651. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Tennessee addressed sections 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

and 110(a)(2)(J) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIP for the following 

infrastructure sections for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS: (1) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved, (2) prong 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) to include adequate 

provisions prohibiting any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the State from emitting any air pollutant 

in amount which will interfere with 

measure required to be include in the 

applicable SIP for any State necessary to 

prevent significant deterioration, and (3) 

section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program 

in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. 

There are four revisions to the 

Tennessee SIP that are necessary to 

meet the requirements of infrastructure 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 

110(a)(2)(J). These four revisions are 

related to (1) the Ozone Implementation 

NSR Update (November 29, 2005, 70 FR 

71612), (2) the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ (June 3, 

2010, 75 FR 31514), (3) the NSR PM2.5

Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321), and 

(4) the portion of the final rulemaking 

entitled ‘‘Final Rule Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC): Final Rule’’ that relates to the 

PM2.5 PSD increments requirements 

(hereafter referred to as the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it 

relates to PM2.5 PSD Increments) (75 FR 

64864). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71571 

7 (1) EPA’s approval of Tennessee’s PSD/NSR 

regulations which address the Ozone 

Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) 

EPA’s approval of Tennessee’s PSD GHG Tailoring 

Rule revisions which addresses the thresholds for 

GHG permitting applicability in Tennessee, (3) 

EPA’s approval of Tennessee’s NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

which adopts required federal PSD and NNSR 

permitting provisions governing the 

implementation of the NSR program for PM2.5 as 

promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule, and (4) EPA’s 

proposed conditional approval of Tennessee’s PSD 

PM2.5 Increments, SILs, and SMC rulemaking to the 

extent it addresses the PM2.5 Increments portion of 

the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule.. 

8EPA 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. 

Tennessee’s Ozone Implementation 

NSR Update revision was submitted by 

TDEC on May 28, 2009, and approved 

by EPA on February 7, 2012. See 77 FR 

6016. Tennessee submitted its 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule, 

to EPA on January 11, 2012, and EPA 

approved it on February 28, 2012. See 

77 FR 11744. Tennessee submitted its 

NNSR requirements related to the 

implementation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule 

on July 29, 2011, and EPA approved this 

revision on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 

44481. On October 4, 2012, Tennessee 

submitted a letter to EPA requesting 

conditional approval of specific 

enforceable measures related to 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

and 110(a)(2)(J) concerning the October 

20, 2010, PSD PM2.5 Increments, SILs 

and SMC Rule because Tennessee’s SIP 

does not currently contain provisions to 

address requirements associated with 

PM2.5 increments. Tennessee’s October 

4, 2012, letter to EPA contained a 

schedule and commitment to provide 

the necessary SIP revision to address its 

SIP deficiencies related to the PM2.5

increments. Today’s conditional 

approval applies only to the PM2.5

increments portion of the PM2.5

Increments, SILs and SMC Rule. The 

PM2.5 Increments, SILs and SMC Rule 

provided additional regulatory 

requirements under the PSD program 

regarding the implementation of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by specifically 

establishing PM2.5 increments pursuant 

to section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

areas meeting the NAAQS. The letter 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0237. The four SIP revisions 

outlined above 7 address the requisite 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 

110(a)(2)(J) and are necessary for 

approval of these infrastructure 

requirements. 

In accordance with section 110(k)(4) 

of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve these sections 

based upon a commitment from 

Tennessee that the State will submit a 

SIP revision addressing the increments 

associated with the PM2.5 PSD 

Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it 

relates to PM2.5 Increments) to EPA for 

approval within one year from EPA’s 

final conditional approval action. In its 

October 4, 2012, letter, TDEC committed 

to adopt the above-specified provisions 

and submit them to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP by no later 

than one year from the publication date 

of EPA’s final conditional approval 

action for that 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.8

As a result of Tennessee’s formal 

commitment to correct the deficiency 

contained in the Tennessee SIP 

pertaining to PM2.5 PSD increments, 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J) 

requirements consistent with section 

110(k)(4) of the Act. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to conditionally approve Tennessee’s 

infrastructure submissions pertaining to 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(J) related to 

PSD, provided to EPA on October 4, 

2012, as addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, this conditional 

approval is based upon Tennessee’s 

commitment that TDEC will provide the 

necessary SIP revision to address its SIP 

deficiencies related to the October 20, 

2010, final rulemaking related to PSD 

PM2.5 Increments. EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve Tennessee’s SIP 

submission consistent with section 

110(k)(4) of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 21, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29107 Filed 11–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS