[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25072-25077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4023]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2003-TN-0001, EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001-200413(a); FRL-
8163-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Revisions to 
the Tennessee Nitrogen Oxides Budget and Allowance Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 
to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Nitrogen 
Oxides (NOX) Budget Trading Program (Trading Program) 
submitted October 27, 2003, and December 10, 2003, by the State of 
Tennessee. The first revision corrects a miscalculation in Tennessee's 
NOX trading budget for non-electric generating units (non-
EGUs) resulting from the use of an incorrect control efficiency 
percentage for one of the Trading Program's non-EGU sources--an Eastman 
Chemical Company boiler. The correction of this miscalculation results 
in a 147 tons per season (tps) increase in Tennessee's NOX 
trading budget for non-EGUs--making its non-EGU trading budget 5,666 
tps, instead of 5,519 tps, and increasing Tennessee's total State-wide 
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 tpy. Based on this 
correction, Tennessee's second revision reallocates trading allowances 
to Eastman Chemical Company--increasing the NOX trading 
allowances from 416 tps to 549 tps for the Eastman Chemical Company 
boiler.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 27, 2006 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 30, 2006. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-

[[Page 25073]]

OAR-2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001, by one of the following 
methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected].
    3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001'', 
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: Stacy DiFrank, 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-
2003-TN-0001 or EPA-R04-OAR-2004-TN-0001.'' EPA's policy is that all 
comments received will be included in the public docket without change 
and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development 
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's 
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy DiFrank, 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) 
562-9042. Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 27, 1998, EPA published the NOX SIP Call (63 
FR 57356). In the NOX SIP Call, EPA took final action to 
prohibit specified amounts of emissions of one of the main precursors 
of ground level ozone, NOX, in order to reduce ozone 
transport across state boundaries in the eastern half of the United 
States. EPA also set forth requirements for each of the affected upwind 
states to submit SIP revisions prohibiting those amounts of 
NOX emissions which significantly contribute to downwind air 
quality problems. In addition, EPA established state-wide 
NOX emissions budgets for the affected states to be met by 
the year 2007. See 40 CFR 51.121(e)(2). The state-wide NOX 
emissions budgets were calculated by assuming the emissions reductions 
that would be achieved by applying available, highly cost-effective 
controls to source categories of NOX. The source categories 
identified and regulated in the NOX SIP Call were electric 
generating units (EGUs), non-electric generating units (non-EGUs), 
internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. For the State of 
Tennessee, EPA determined the total 2007 State-wide NOX 
emissions budget to be 163,928 tons per season (tps), with the 
following 5 sub-budgets:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       EGU              Non-EGU              Area             Nonroad            Highway             Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     25,814 tps          5,519 tps         13,333 tps         52,920 tps         66,342 tps       163,928 tps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See 69 FR 3015, 3016 (January 22, 2004).

    To assist the states in their efforts to meet the NOX 
SIP Call, the NOX SIP Call final rulemaking included a model 
NOX allowance trading regulation, called the 
``NOX Budget Trading Program for State Implementation 
Plans,'' (40 CFR part 96), that could be used by states to develop 
their regulations. In the NOX SIP Call, EPA explained that 
if states developed an allowance trading regulation consistent with the 
EPA model rule, they could participate in a regional allowance trading 
program that would be administered by EPA. See 63 FR 57458-57459. EPA's 
model NOX budget and allowance trading rule sets forth a 
NOX emissions trading program for large EGUs and non-EGUs. 
For a full description of EPA's model NOX budget trading 
program, see 63 FR 57514-56538 and 40 CFR part 96.
    In an emissions budget and allowance trading program, the state 
sets an emissions trading budget for covered sources. The trading 
budget limits the total number of allowances for each source covered by 
the program during a particular control period. After setting the 
trading budget, the state then assigns, or allocates, allowances to the 
participating entities up to the level of the trading budget. Each 
allowance authorizes the emission of a quantity of pollutant, e.g., one 
ton of airborne NOX. At the end of the control period, each 
source must demonstrate that its actual

[[Page 25074]]

emissions during the control period were less than or equal to the 
number of available allowances it holds. Sources that reduce their 
emissions below their allocated allowance level may sell their extra 
allowances. Sources that emit more than the amount of their allocated 
allowance level may buy allowances from the sources with extra 
reductions.
    In response to the NOX SIP Call, Tennessee submitted SIP 
revisions in 2000, 2001, and 2003 that consisted of standards for 
cement kilns and a NOX Budget Trading Program for large 
EGU's and certain non-EGUs (Trading Program). Tennessee's Trading 
Program applies to all large EGUs and to non-EGUs that have a heat 
input capacity equal to or greater than 250 million Brithish thermal 
units (mmBtu) per hour. Under the Trading Program, each NOX 
allowance permits a source to emit one ton of NOX during the 
seasonal control period. NOX allowances may be bought or 
sold. Unused NOX allowances may also be banked for future 
use, with certain limitations. Upon finding that the submittals met the 
requirements of Phase I of the NOX SIP Call, EPA fully 
approved the State's Trading Program on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3015). 
Under the approved Trading Program, Tennessee's NOX trading 
budget was as follows:

           Tennessee's Previously Approved NOX Trading Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Tennessee 2007
                                                           NOX Trading
                    Source category                      Program budget
                                                         emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU...................................................            25,814
Non-EGU...............................................             5,519
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................           31, 333
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, and also pursuant to the Trading Program, the State 
made allocations under the trading budget to its EGU and non-EGU 
sources.
    On October 27, 2003, and December 10, 2003, Tennessee submitted SIP 
revisions to its Trading Program. The first SIP revision submittal 
corrects a miscalculation in Tennessee's trading budget for non-EGUs. 
This miscalculation resulted from the use of an incorrect control 
efficiency percentage for one of the Tennessee Trading Program's non-
EGU sources--an Eastman Chemical Company boiler. The correction of this 
miscalculation results in a 147 tps increase in Tennessee's trading 
budget for non-EGUs--making its non-EGU trading budget 5,666 tps, 
instead of 5,519 tps, and increases Tennessee's State-wide 
NOX budget from 163,928 tpy to 164,075 tpy. Based on this 
correction, Tennessee's second SIP revision submittal reallocates 
trading allowances to Eastman Chemical Company.

II. Analysis of Tennessee's October 27, 2003 Submittal: Correction to 
Non-EGU Trading Budget

    At the time it developed its Trading Program, Tennessee calculated 
its 2007 trading budget for covered non-EGUs to be 5,519 tps. This 2007 
trading budget reflects calculations for 24 units at 10 plants. The 
calculations, based upon EPA's NOX SIP Call methodology, 
require (1) the determination of an adjusted baseline emissions amount 
(total uncontrolled emissions) at each unit; (2) the application of a 
growth factor of 1.65; (3) the application of presumptive controls of 
60 percent; (4) the calculation of each unit's budget--which represents 
the difference between the total uncontrolled emissions and the 
presumptively controlled emissions; and (5) the summation of the total 
resulting budgets for all units to establish a total non-EGU trading 
budget. Where units already had controls in place during the period 
used for the NOX SIP Call inventory, uncontrolled emissions 
were determined by calculating the control efficiency of those controls 
and adding those ``controlled'' emissions back into the baseline 
amount. Using this formula, Tennessee determined its non-EGU trading 
budget to be 5,519 tps. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(f).
    The State of Tennessee's SIP submittal, dated October 27, 2003, 
seeks EPA approval to change Tennessee's SIP (specifically Tennessee 
Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(f)) to reflect a non-EGU trading budget of 5,666 
tps, instead of 5,519 tps. The basis for this change is information 
from Eastman Chemical Company indicating that the control efficiency 
for the low-NOX burners and overfire air on its wall-fired, 
pulverized coal boiler--Boiler Unit 016 (325-31)--was incorrectly 
identified as 40 percent during the development of the State's non-EGU 
trading budget. The correct control efficiency is 54.5 percent. Eastman 
Chemical Company recognized this error during preparation of its Clean 
Air Act title V permit application. The corrected control efficiency of 
54.5 percent is calculated as follows:
     For pulverized coal, dry bottom wall-fired bituminous pre-
New Source Performance Standards boilers, an emission factor of 22 
pounds per ton (lb/ton) was used;
     Assuming coal at 12,500 Btu/lb, these factors are equal to 
0.88 lb/mmBtu and 0.6 lb/mmBtu, respectively. Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) 
has a best available control technology limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu. This 
would equate to a control efficiency of (0.88-0.4)/0.88 = 54.5 percent.
    The original calculation of Tennesee's trading budget for Boiler 
Unit 016 (325-31) using the incorrect control efficiency of 40 percent 
was 457.776 tps, which, together with the trading budgets from other 
covered non-EGUs, resulted in a total non-EGU trading budget of 5,519 
tps. The 457.776 tps trading budget for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was 
calculated using the following information:
     Controlled emissions for the Boiler are 416.16 tps.
     A 40 percent control efficiency reflected the control of 
277.44 tps.
     When those 277.44 tps of controlled NOX 
emissions were added back into the baseline of 416.16 tps, the 
resulting adjusted baseline emissions (reflecting all uncontrolled 
emissions) was 693.6 tps.
    In calculating the trading budget using the incorrect control 
efficiency figure of 40 percent, the adjusted baseline emissions for 
the Boiler (693.6 tps) were multiplied by the growth factor of 1.65 to 
render the amount of uncontrolled emissions for the Unit for the year 
2007 (1,144.44 tps). A presumptive control of 60 percent was then 
applied to the uncontrolled emissions to render the amount of emissions 
that are controllable at the Boiler (686.664 tps). The difference 
between the 2007 uncontrolled emissions (1,144.44 tps) and the 
controllable emissions (686.664 tps) represented the trading budget for 
the Unit (457.776 tps). Thus, the original calculations for Boiler Unit 
016 (325-31) were as follows:
     Total 2007 uncontrolled emissions: 693.6 tps x 1.65 = 
1,144.44 tps.
     Presumptive controlled emissions (60 percent) 1,144.44 tps 
x 0.6 = 686.664 tps.
     Trading budget for Boiler: 1,144.44 tps - 686.664 tps = 
457.776 tps.
    However, using the corrected control efficiency of 54.5 percent 
(versus 40 percent) results in more uncontrolled emissions being added 
back into the adjusted baseline emissions amount (total uncontrolled 
emissions) calculated for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) and further results 
in an increase to the Boiler's trading budget. That is, using the 
corrected control efficiency for the Boiler of 54.5 percent results in 
an additional 222.178 tps of controlled emissions that should have been 
added back into the Boiler's adjusted baseline emissions--resulting in 
an adjusted baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) of 915.778 
tps.

[[Page 25075]]

    In calculating the trading budget using this corrected information, 
the adjusted baseline emissions for the Boiler (915.778 tps) are 
multiplied by the growth factor of 1.65 to render the amount of 2007 
uncontrolled emissions for the Boiler (1,511.0337 tps). A presumptive 
control of 60 percent is then applied to the uncontrolled emissions to 
render the amount of 2007 emissions that are controllable at the Boiler 
(906.62022 tps). The difference between the 2007 uncontrolled emissions 
(1,511.0337 tps) and the controllable emissions (906.62022 tps) 
represents the trading budget for the Boiler (604.41348 tps). The 
corrected calculations for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) are as follows:
     Uncontrolled emissions through 2007: 915.778 tps x 1.65 = 
1,511.0337 tps.
     Presumptive controlled emissions (60 percent) 1,511.0337 
tps x 0.6 = 906.62022 tps.
     Trading budget for Boiler: 1511.0337 tps - 906.62022 tps = 
604.41348 tps.
    The corrected calculations result in a trading budget for Boiler 
Unit 016 (325-31) of 604.413 tps rather than 457.776 tps. This is a 
difference of an additional 146.637 tps (or 147 tps when rounding up). 
The corrected, and additional 147 tps, revises Tennessee's total non-
EGU trading budget upward--from 5,519 tps to 5,666 tps. This also 
revises the total Tennessee State-wide NOX budget upward 
from 163,928 tps to 164,075 tps.
    EPA has reviewed these calculations and concurs with this revision 
to both the non-EGU trading budget and the overall State-wide 
NOX budget for Tennessee. Therefore, EPA is approving 
Tennessee's October 27, 2003 SIP revision. Tennessee's overall 
NOX emissions budgets and Trading Program budgets are now as 
follows:

             Tennessee's Current NOX Trading Program Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Tennessee 2007
                                                           NOX Trading
                    Source category                      Program budget
                                                         emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU...................................................            25,814
Non-EGU...............................................             5,666
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................            31,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Tennessee's Current Overall NOX Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Tennessee 2007
                    Source category                        NOX budget
                                                         emissions (tps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs..................................................            25,814
Non-EGUs..............................................             5,666
Area Sources..........................................            13,333
Non-road Sources......................................            52,920
Highway Sources.......................................            66,342
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................           164,075
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Tennessee's December 10, 2003 Submittal: Reallocation 
of Allowances

    In light of the above correction to Tennessee's non-EGU trading 
budget, the State's second SIP submittal, dated December 10, 2003, 
reallocates a portion of the corrected non-EGU trading budget (now 
5,666 tps) to Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) 
pursuant to the State's allocation methodology that is set out in its 
EPA-approved Trading Program. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(2), 
Subpart E. The reallocation provides the Eastman Chemical Company 
Boiler with 133 tps of additional trading allowances, for a total of 
549 tps.
    Under its EPA-approved Trading Program, Tennessee's NOX 
trading budget allowances are submitted as proposed SIP revisions to 
EPA for approval. See Tennessee Rule 1200-3-27-.06(1)(h)(3). The 
State's original EGU and non-EGU trading allowances (submitted to EPA 
on October 4, 2001) were approved by EPA on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 
3015). With very few exceptions, Tennessee allocates allowances 
equivalent to 60 percent of the adjusted baseline emissions to each 
non-EGU unit in its Trading Program. Under the State's original 
(uncorrected) 5, 519 tps trading budget, Tennessee allocated a total of 
5,255 tps to the 24 units in its Trading Program. Of that 5,255 tps, 
Eastman Chemical's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was allocated 416 tps based 
upon the above-discussed erroneously calculated adjusted baseline 
emissions of 693.6 tps.
    Tennessee's December 10, 2003, SIP submittal seeks to adjust the 
allocation of allowances to Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) in light of the 
correction to the State's non-EGU trading budget which resulted from 
correcting the Boiler's adjusted baseline emissions. Using the 
corrected adjusted baseline emissions for Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) of 
915.778 tps, the portion of the non-EGU trading budget allocated to the 
Eastman Chemical Boiler under the State's 60% allocation methodology 
becomes 549 tps, rather than 416 tps (an increase of 133 tps). That is, 
using the State's allocation methodology, 60 percent of the Boiler's 
adjusted baseline emissions of 915.778 equals 549 tps.
    It should be noted that the 133 tps increase in allocations to 
Boiler 016 (325-31) uses only a portion of the corrected non-EGU 
trading budget (e.g., 133 tps of the 147 tps added to the trading 
budget after correction). The remainder of the corrected trading budget 
increase (14 tps) has not been re-allocated by the State. With the 133 
tps allocations increase to Boiler 016 (325-31), the resulting 
corrected total of allocations to all non-EGUs in the State's Trading 
Program is 5,388 tps. This total of non-EGU allocations represents 95 
percent of the State's non-EGU trading budget as required by the 
Trading Program (and EPA's model trading program). See Tennessee Rule 
1200-3-27-.06, Subpart E, Section 92.42(c)(2).
    Because Tennessee's reallocation of allowances to Eastman Chemical 
Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) was made in accordance with the 
State's EPA-approved Trading Program, EPA concurs with the reallocation 
and is approving Tennessee's December 10, 2003, SIP submittal. The 
allocation to Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler 016 (325-31) is now 549 
tps.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Tennessee SIP. 
EPA has reviewed the State of Tennessee's justification concerning the 
re-calculation of non-EGU NOX emissions and concurs with 
Tennessee's 2007 state-wide NOX budget for non-EGUs of 5,666 
tps. With this re-calculation, EPA is also approving the resulting 
increase in Tennessee's State-wide NOX emission budget--now 
at 164,075 tps. In addition, EPA has also reviewed the State's request 
to re-allocate allowances of the non-EGU NOX budget to 
Eastman Chemical Company's Boiler Unit 016 (325-31) based upon these 
corrections and concurs with the revised allocation of 549 tps for this 
Unit.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 27, 2006 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
May 30, 2006.

[[Page 25076]]

    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 27, 2006 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if 
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of 
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of 
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are 
not the subject of an adverse comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 27, 2006. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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.

    Dated: April 19, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by revising the entries in Table 1 for 
``Section 1200-3-27-.06'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  Table 1.--EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective                        Federal Register
         State citation              Title/subject           date          EPA approval date        notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-27-.06...........  NOX Trading Budget   October 19, 2003.  April 28, 2006....  [Insert citation
                                   for State                                                   of publication].
                                   Implementation
                                   Plans.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 25077]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-4023 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P