SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background for Today's Action

II. Final Action

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Today's Action

On February 9, 1993, and December 19, 1994, the State of Tennessee submitted provisions constituting its plan to address visibility impairment in Federal Class I areas. EPA approved these submittals on July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35681). On January 17, 1995, the State of Tennessee also submitted rules for addressing visibility in its NSR program. EPA fully approved this submittal on July 18, 1996 (61 FR 35387).

The aforementioned submittals provide the necessary revisions to Tennessee's plan for visibility impairment prevention for Class I areas, and satisfied EPA's requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.304 and 51.306. These visibility provisions were submitted to EPA in order to satisfy the second part of the Settlement Agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund, et al., Environmental Defense Fund v. Thomas, number C826850 RPA, and are described at 49 FR 20647 on May 16, 1984. The schedule for submittal and promulgation of these visibility provisions was renegotiated and subsequently extended by a court order on September 9, 1986.

The second part of the Settlement Agreement required EPA to propose and promulgate Federal Visibility SIPs, addressing the general visibility plan provisions including implementation control strategies (40 CFR 51.302), integral vista protection (40 CFR 51.302 through 51.307), and long-term strategies (40 CFR 51.306) for those States whose SIPs EPA had determined to be inadequate with respect to the above provisions ( see January 23, 1986, ( printed page 20784) notice of deficiency (51 FR 3046) and March 12, 1987, notice proposing FIPs for deficient State SIPs (52 FR 7803)). However, as provided in the renegotiated Settlement Agreement, a State could avoid the promulgation of said provisions if they submitted a visibility SIP by August 31, 1987. The State of Tennessee did not submit a plan by August 31, 1987, and as a result EPA promulgated Part 2 provisions for Tennessee in a FIP to satisfy the Settlement Agreement on November 24, 1987.

Subsequently, the State of Tennessee provided SIP revisions on February 9, 1993, December 19, 1994, and January 17, 1995, with the intent to replace the EPA-promulgated provisions (or FIP) that was put in place. The EPA actions on July 18, 1996 and July 2, 1997, fully approved these Tennessee SIP revisions but inadvertently did not remove the Federally-promulgated provisions in 40 CFR 52.2234. Today's action corrects that oversight.

II. Final Action

EPA is taking direct final action to correct an omission related to the visibility requirements for Tennessee. Specifically, EPA is removing the previous Federally promulgated provisions in 40 CFR 52.2234 for visibility for Tennessee because the State later submitted, and EPA approved, revisions covering visibility requirements for Tennessee. EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Tennessee SIP because they are consistent with the CAA and Agency requirements. 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 21, 2010 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 21, 2010.

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 21, 2010 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget underExecutive 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 inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive 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 Clean Air Act; 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, underExecutive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 21, 2010. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307(b)(2)).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

( printed page 20785) Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Section 52.2234 is removed and reserved.

75 FR 20783