Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Regional Haze Progress Report, 66596-66602 [2016-23291]

Download as PDF 66596 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules S–2, for example, contains permitting requirements that require controls and emission limits for certain NOX emitting sources in the State. These permitting requirements help ensure that no new or modified NOX sources in the State subject to these permitting regulations will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. For all the reasons discussed above, EPA has preliminarily determined that Mississippi does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state and that Mississippi’s SIP includes adequate provisions to prevent emissions sources within the State from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of this standard in any other state. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS V. Proposed Action As described above, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi’s May 23, 2016, SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 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 proposes to approve 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 actions’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • 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); VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory actions 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). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 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. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 15, 2016. Kenneth R. Lapierre, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2016–23300 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0799; FRL–9953–17– Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Regional Haze Progress Report Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on April 19, 2013. Tennessee’s April 19, 2013, SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules that require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state’s existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee’s Progress Report on the basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze. Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2016. DATES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2013–0799 at http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562–9031 and via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules I. Background Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each state was required to submit its first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment to EPA no later than December 17, 2007. See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Tennessee submitted its regional haze plan on April 4, 2008, and like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), relied on CAIR to satisfy best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric generating units (EGUs) in the State. On April 24, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300–308.2 Also in this April 24, 2012, action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Tennessee’s regional haze plan because of deficiencies arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. See 77 FR 24392. On June 7, 2012, EPA promulgated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of several states, including Tennessee’s regional haze plan.3 See 77 FR 33642. Each state is also required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). Each state is also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of its 1 Located in 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. April 24, 2012, action did not include the BART determination for Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman). On November 27, 2012, EPA finalized approval of the BART requirements for Eastman that were provided in the April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP, as later modified and supplemented on May 14, 2012, and May 25, 2012 (77 FR 70689). 3 Although a number of parties challenged the legality of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, and CSAPR is now in effect. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 2 This VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. On April 19, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g), TDEC submitted to EPA, in the form of a revision to Tennessee’s SIP, a report on progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from sources within the State. This submission also includes a negative declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State’s regional haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee’s Progress Report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy Determination A. Regional Haze Progress Report Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze plan; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze plan; and (7) a review of the state’s visibility monitoring strategy. B. Adequacy Determination of the Current Regional Haze Plan Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze plan and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. As described in further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state’s existing regional haze plan is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and to other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66597 state determines that its existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze plan to address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources within the state. III. What is EPA’s Analysis of Tennessee’s Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy Determination? On April 19, 2013, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee’s regional haze plan to address progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from sources within Tennessee. This submittal also includes a determination of the adequacy of the State’s existing regional haze plan. Tennessee has two Class I areas within its borders: Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area. These areas are located partially in North Carolina and Tennessee. In its regional haze plan, the State also identified, through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, four Class I areas in three neighboring states potentially impacted by Tennessee sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in Georgia; Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky; and Linville Gorge and Shining Rock Wilderness areas in North Carolina. See 76 FR 33662, 33683 (June 9, 2011). A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements that must be addressed by a progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); (2) how Tennessee’s Progress Report addressed each element; and (3) EPA’s analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied each element. 1. Status of Control Measures 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional haze plan for E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1 66598 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state. The State evaluated the status of measures included in its 2008 regional haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its Progress Report, Tennessee summarizes the status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the final iteration of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling used by the State in developing its regional haze plan. The measures include, among other things, applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards), federal consent agreements, and federal and state control strategies for EGUs. The State also discusses the status of several measures that were not included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not relied upon in the initial regional haze plan to meet RPGs, including EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule and a 2011 federal consent agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The State notes that the emissions reductions from these measures will help ensure that Class I areas impacted by Tennessee sources achieve their RPGs. Although Tennessee determined in its regional haze SIP that no additional controls for sources in the State were necessary to obtain reasonable progress during the first implementation period, Tennessee’s Progress Report identifies six out-of-state sources located in the area of influence of one or more of Tennessee’s Class I areas using the State’s methodology for determining sources eligible for a reasonable progress control determination. These six sources were evaluated by their respective states for reasonable progress. The Progress Report summarizes the reasonable progress control determinations made for these six facilities (five facilities consisting of 12 EGUs, one non-EGU facility) in the surrounding States of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina and, where applicable, provides a status of the required controls. Of the 12 EGUs at five facilities in these states, nine EGUs already have scrubbers installed and three EGUs located in South Carolina were retired.4 In addition, the State provides an update on the status of EGUs in Tennessee identified by the states of Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont as contributing to visibility impairment at the following Class I areas located in those states based on 2002 emissions: Acadia National Park (ME), Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range—Dry River Wilderness Area (NH), Lye Brook Wilderness Area (VT), and Brigantine Wilderness Area (NJ)). These states are members of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU), which identified 167 EGU ‘‘stacks,’’ five of which are in Tennessee, as contributing significantly to visibility impairment at MANE–VU Class I areas in 2002. The five Tennessee EGU stacks identified by MANE–VU are located at TVA’s Gallatin, John Sevier, Johnsonville, and Kingston plants. MANE–VU asked Tennessee to control the SO2 emissions from these EGUs with a 90 percent control efficiency and to adopt a control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2 emissions from nonEGU emission sources that would be equivalent to MANE–VU’s proposed low sulfur residential fuel oil strategy. Tennessee summarizes in its Progress Report its February 20, 2008, response to the four MANE–VU states’ letters at the time of the State’s regional haze SIP development, indicating that the control schedule for the five identified EGU stacks is reasonable and adequately limits the emissions of SO2 for visibility impairment purposes. See Table 1 below. TABLE 1—TENNESSEE EGU STACKS IDENTIFIED BY MANE–VU STATES Plant name Tennessee’s February 20, 2008, response TVA Gallatin .................................... TVA John Sevier ............................. TVA Johnsonville ............................ This plant uses low-sulfur fuel at an emission rate of 0.61 lbs SO2/mmBtu. TVA has announced plans to install flue gas desulfurization (FGD) by 2012. This plant is burning a low-sulfur fuel (1.5 lbs SO2/mmBtu) with TVA performing testing to determine the viability of lower sulfur coal with the objective of going to 0.9 lbs SO2/mmBtu before 2015. FGD is being installed on this stack with a construction complete date scheduled for 2010. FGD is being installed on this stack with a construction complete date scheduled for 2010. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS TVA Kingston .................................. TVA Kingston .................................. As part of its Progress Report, Tennessee notes that these EGU stacks are either currently controlled with low sulfur coal or scrubbers with a 95 percent SO2 control efficiency, are shutdown, or are scheduled for shutdown by 2017.5 Tennessee notes that the requested EGU SO2 reductions are exceeded through improved removal efficiencies at these five EGUs, the shutdown of eight EGUs at the four TVA plants as of 2015, and the scheduled shutdown of an additional EGU by 2017, noting that additional reductions are expected for the remainder of the planning period. Tennessee also affirms that its Progress Report shows progress with reducing non-EGU SO2 emissions. EPA proposes to find that Tennessee’s analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for the reasons discussed below. The State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze plan in addition to describing additional measures not originally accounted for in the final VISTAS emissions inventory that came into effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze plan were completed. Tennessee reviewed the status of BART requirements for the four BART-subject sources in the State: Alcoa—South Plant, DuPont—Old Hickory, Eastman Chemical Company, and TVA—Cumberland Fossil Plant. The State’s Progress Report also provides detailed information on EGU 4 See Tennessee Progress Report narrative, Table 2–5, page 26. control strategies in its regional haze plan and the status of existing and future expected controls for Tennessee’s EGUs because, in its regional haze plan, Tennessee identified SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs as the key contributor to regional haze in the VISTAS region. In its regional haze plan, Tennessee determined that no additional controls of sources in the State were reasonable for the first implementation period. Additionally, the State summarizes the emissions controls included in the regional haze plan for Tennessee sources in the area of influence of other states’ Class I areas and the status of these controls. 5 See Table 2–4 on pages 22–24 of Tennessee’s Progress Report. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2. Emissions Reductions and Progress 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, Tennessee focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for more than 70 percent of the visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS states 6 and that SO2 point source emissions are projected to represent more than 95 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the VISTAS states in 2018.7 As discussed in section III.A.5, below, Tennessee determined that sulfates continue to be the largest contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the State. In its Progress Report, Tennessee presents SO2 emissions data for 33 EGUs at seven facilities in the State that were projected to have controls installed, or projected to retire, by 2018 in Tennessee’s regional haze SIP. Actual SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2011 for these Tennessee EGUs (199,568 tons per year (tpy)) are already close to the projected SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in Tennessee’s regional haze plan for these EGUs (207,540 tpy).8 Tennessee also includes SO2 and NOx emissions data from 2002–2010 for EGUs in Tennessee subject to reporting under the Acid Rain Program. This data shows a decline in these emissions over this time period and that the SO2 reductions are higher than those estimated for these units in the State’s regional haze SIP between 2002–2018. EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, the State provides estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions of SO2 and NOX at EGUs in the State resulting from the measures relied upon in its regional haze plan. The State appropriately focused on SO2 emissions from its EGUs in its Progress Report because the State had previously identified these emissions as the most significant contributors to visibility impairment at Tennessee’s Class I areas and those areas that Tennessee sources impact. 66599 3. Visibility Progress 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: 9 (i) Current visibility conditions; (ii) the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (iii) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years. Tennessee provides figures with visibility monitoring data that address the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for the State’s two Class I areas. Tennessee reported current conditions as the 2006–2010 five-year time period and used the 2000–2004 baseline period for its Class I areas.10 Table 2, below, shows the current visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions. Table 3 shows the changes in visibility from 2006–2010 in terms of five-year averages. TABLE 2—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN TENNESSEE Baseline (2000–2004) Class I area 20% Worst Days: Great Smoky Mountains National Park .................................................... Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .............................................................................. 20% Best Days: Great Smoky Mountains National Park .................................................... Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .............................................................................. Current (2006–2010) Difference RPG (2018) 30.3 30.3 26.6 26.6 ¥3.7 ¥3.7 23.5 23.5 13.6 13.6 12.3 12.3 ¥1.3 ¥1.3 12.1 12.1 TABLE 3—CHANGES IN 5-YEAR VISIBILITY AVERAGES FROM 2006–2010 Class I area 2006 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 20% Worst Days: Great Smoky Mountains National Park ........................ Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .................................................. 20% Best Days: Great Smoky Mountains National Park ........................ Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .................................................. 2007 2008 2009 2010 30.4 30.4 30.6 30.6 29.8 29.8 28.5 28.5 26.6 26.6 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.1 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 All Tennessee Class I areas saw an improvement in visibility between baseline and 2006–2010 conditions and an overall decline in the five-year average visibility averages from 2006– 2010. EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State provides the information regarding visibility conditions and visibility changes necessary to meet the requirements of the regulation. The Progress Report includes current conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the years 2006–2010, the 6 Sulfate levels on the 20 percent worst days account for 60–70 percent of the visibility impairment at both of Tennessee’s Class I areas. For additional information, see Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional haze plan at page 13. 7 For additional information, see Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional haze plan at page 81. 8 Table 2–4, page 31, and Appendix A of Tennessee’s Progress Report. 9 The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR 51.301. 10 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’ conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area does not have a visibility monitor; therefore, visibility data from Great Smoky Mountains National Park is used for both areas given their proximity. For more information see 76 FR 33669. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1 66600 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the five-year period 2006–2010. 4. Emissions Tracking 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emission changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state’s sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its Progress Report, Tennessee presents data from a statewide actual emissions inventory for 2008 and compares this data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual and typical emissions) from its regional haze plan. For the typical 2002 stationary point source emissions inventory, Tennessee adjusted the EGU emissions for a typical year so that if sources were shut down or operating above or below normal, the emissions are normalized to a typical emissions inventory year. The typical year data is used to develop projected typical future year emissions inventories. The pollutants inventoried include volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3) NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and SO2. The emissions inventories include the following source classifications: Point, area, biogenics, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources. Tennessee includes the actual and typical emissions inventories from its regional haze plan for 2002, and summarizes emissions data from EPA’s 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).11 Tennessee’s analysis shows that 2008 emissions are lower than both the actual and typical 2002 emissions. Tennessee estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2008 inventory using the MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher emissions for NOX and PM than its previous counterpart, the MOBILE6.2 model, used by the State to estimate on-road mobile source emissions for the 2002 inventories. Despite the change in methodology, a declining trend in all pollutants can be seen between 2002 and 2008 when comparing Tables 4 and 5 to Table 6. TABLE 4—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE (TPY) Source category VOC PM2.5 NOX PM10 NH3 SO2 Point ......................................................... Area .......................................................... On-Road Mobile ....................................... Non-Road Mobile ..................................... Biogenics .................................................. 85,254 153,509 179,807 66,450 894,214 221,651 17,936 238,577 96,827 18,081 39,973 42,925 3,949 6,458 0 49,814 212,972 5,371 6,819 0 1,817 34,412 6,625 43 0 413,755 29,942 9,226 10,441 0 Total .................................................. 1,379,234 593,072 93,305 274,976 42,897 463,364 TABLE 5—2002 TYPICAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE (TPY) Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2 Point ......................................................... Area .......................................................... On-Road Mobile ....................................... Non-Road Mobile ..................................... Biogenics .................................................. 85,218 153,783 179,807 66,450 894,214 216,481 18,061 238,577 96,827 18,081 39,298 43,410 3,949 6,458 0 49,040 213,538 5,371 6,819 0 1,810 34,439 6,625 43 0 399,750 29,977 9,226 10,441 0 Total .................................................. 1,379,472 588,027 93,115 274,768 42,917 449,394 TABLE 6—2008 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE (TPY) Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2 38,155 104,305 80,476 50,525 786,087 134,162 43,388 213,973 35,593 13,682 15,551 46,672 8,441 3,305 0 20,734 194,631 10,445 3,470 0 1,193 34,898 3,167 38 0 258,033 65,026 3,903 591 0 Total .................................................. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Point ......................................................... Area .......................................................... On-Road Mobile ....................................... Non-Road Mobile ..................................... Biogenics .................................................. 1,059,548 440,798 73,969 229,280 39,296 327,553 EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). Tennessee tracked changes in emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from 2002–2008 for all source categories and analyzed trends in emissions from 2002–2008, the most current quality-assured data available for these units at the time of progress report development. While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze plan was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period that states can select. 11 The 2008 NEI data was the most recent NEI data available at the time that Tennessee submitted its Progress Report. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state’s sources. In its Progress Report, Tennessee documented that sulfates, which are formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the State and therefore focused its analysis on large SO2 emissions from point sources. In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Tennessee demonstrates that sulfate contributions to visibility impairment have decreased from 2006 to 2010 along with an improvement in visibility at Class I areas in Tennessee, and examines other potential pollutants of concern affecting visibility at these areas. The State presents data for the 20 percent worst days showing that ammonium sulfate is responsible for 74 percent of the regional haze at Tennessee’s two Class I areas for the period 2006–2010, with primary organic matter as the next largest contributor at 12 percent. The State notes that there are no significant changes in anthropogenic emissions that have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by Tennessee sources. Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that the State is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I areas in Tennessee. For these reasons, EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee’s Progress Report has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 6. Assessment of Current Strategy 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state. The State believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for the Tennessee Class I areas and will not impede Class I areas outside of Tennessee from meeting their RPGs based on the trends in visibility and emissions presented in its Progress Report. In its Progress Report, Tennessee provided reconstructed light extinction figures for the 20 percent worst days for Great Smoky Mountains National Park for 2006 through 2010, noting similar results at Joyce Kilmer Class I area. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 20 percent worst days extinction clearly demonstrates that sulfates continue to be the largest contributor to visibility impairment at these Class I areas, with stationary point sources being the largest source of SO2 emissions in Tennessee. As identified in Tables 3–1 and 3–2 and Appendix A of the Progress Report, SO2 emissions from EGUs in Tennessee have decreased from 2002 to 2011. Also, the emissions data provided in Table 3–1 of the Progress Report show a declining trend in NOX emissions from 2002 to 2010 for EGUs in Tennessee. Tennessee also provides visibility data for the State’s two Class I areas (Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness Area) and the Class I areas potentially impacted by the State’s sources (Cohutta Wilderness Area (Cohutta) in Georgia, Mammoth Cave National Park (Mammoth Cave) in Kentucky, and Linville Gorge and Shining Rock Wilderness Areas in North Carolina)) and notes that this data shows that these areas are on track to achieve their RPGs by 2018.12 EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information, including expected emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not yet become effective. In its assessment, the State references the improving visibility trends and the downward emissions trends in the State, with a focus on SO2 emissions from Tennessee EGUs. These trends support the State’s determination that the State’s regional haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas within and outside the State impacted by Tennessee sources. 7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state’s visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. Tennessee’s Progress Report summarizes the existing monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility in Tennessee’s Class I areas and concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for regional haze, both nationwide and in Tennessee, is the IMPROVE network. There is 12 See pages 35–37 and 48–55 of Tennessee’s Progress Report. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 66601 currently one IMPROVE site in Tennessee which serves as the monitoring site for both the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area. The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at Class I areas in Tennessee. Tennessee states that data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the 5-year progress reports and the 10year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data, and thus, the State notes that the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible and to be kept up to date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Tennessee benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not responsible for associated funding decisions to maintain these measurements into the future. In addition, TDEC and the local air agencies in the State operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter-based federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, and filter-based speciated monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help the TDEC characterize air pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the Class I areas in Tennessee. EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring network; assessed its entire visibility monitoring network, including additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5 monitors, used to further understand visibility trends in the State; and determined that no changes to its monitoring strategy are necessary. B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report. The following section E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1 66602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules summarizes: (1) The action taken by Tennessee under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) Tennessee’s rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA’s analysis and proposed determination regarding the State’s action. In its Progress Report, Tennessee took the action provided for by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional haze plan requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state’s sources. The basis for the State’s negative declaration is the findings from the Progress Report, including the findings that: Visibility has improved at Class I areas in Tennessee and at Class I areas impacted by sources in Tennessee; overall emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from the State’s sources have decreased from 2002 to 2008 by approximately 25 percent 13 and emissions of SO2 from certain EGUs in Tennessee have decreased by approximately 200,000 tons from 2002– 2010; 14 and additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the State’s regional haze plan have occurred or will occur in the implementation period and are expected to continue to trend downward. EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the Class I areas impacted by the State’s sources and the emissions trends of the State’s largest emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants indicate that the RPGs for Class I areas impacted by source in Tennessee will be met. IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee’s Regional Haze Progress Report SIP revision, submitted by the State on April 19, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 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 13 See page 42 of Tennessee’s Progress Report. discussed earlier, these EGUs were projected to have controls installed, or projected to retire, by 2018 in Tennessee’s regional haze SIP. 14 As VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 27, 2016 Jkt 238001 the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • 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). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 15, 2016. Kenneth R. Lapierre, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2016–23291 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0269; FRL–9953–12– Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky-Indiana Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky-Indiana area is attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and to approve a request from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). The Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio; Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana; and, Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. Ohio EPA submitted this request on April 21, 2016. EPA is also proposing to approve, as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour ozone standard through 2030 in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is proposing to approve the state’s 2020 and 2030 volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Ohio and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2016–0269 at http:// www.regulations.gov or via email to aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\28SEP1.SGM 28SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66596-66602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23291]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0799; FRL-9953-17-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC) on April 19, 2013. Tennessee's April 19, 2013, SIP 
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic 
reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of 
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). 
EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's Progress Report on the basis 
that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination 
requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0799 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9031 
and via electronic mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 66597]]

I. Background

    Under the Regional Haze Rule,\1\ each state was required to submit 
its first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment to EPA no later than December 17, 2007. See 40 CFR 
51.308(b). Tennessee submitted its regional haze plan on April 4, 2008, 
and like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR), relied on CAIR to satisfy best available retrofit technology 
(BART) requirements for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from electric generating units 
(EGUs) in the State. On April 24, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 
approval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze plan as meeting 
some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 
sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308.\2\ Also in 
this April 24, 2012, action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of 
Tennessee's regional haze plan because of deficiencies arising from the 
State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. 
See 77 FR 24392. On June 7, 2012, EPA promulgated Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance 
on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address deficiencies 
in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of several states, including 
Tennessee's regional haze plan.\3\ See 77 FR 33642.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Located in 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.
    \2\ This April 24, 2012, action did not include the BART 
determination for Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman). On November 
27, 2012, EPA finalized approval of the BART requirements for 
Eastman that were provided in the April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP, 
as later modified and supplemented on May 14, 2012, and May 25, 2012 
(77 FR 70689).
    \3\ Although a number of parties challenged the legality of 
CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially vacated and remanded CSAPR to 
EPA in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 
2012), the United States Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's 
decision on April 29, 2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. 
Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high 
court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 
respects, and CSAPR is now in effect. EME Homer City Generation, 
L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each state is also required to submit a progress report in the form 
of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the 
RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for 
each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be 
affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). Each 
state is also required to submit, at the same time as the progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of its existing regional haze 
plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years 
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan.
    On April 19, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g), TDEC submitted 
to EPA, in the form of a revision to Tennessee's SIP, a report on 
progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for 
Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from 
sources within the State. This submission also includes a negative 
declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State's regional 
haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Regional 
Haze Rule. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's Progress Report on 
the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 
51.308(h).

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report and Adequacy 
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress 
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a 
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in 
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A 
description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze 
plan; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment 
of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an 
analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the 
state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic 
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded 
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an 
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze plan; and 
(7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.

B. Adequacy Determination of the Current Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same 
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their 
existing regional haze plan and to take one of four possible actions 
based on information in the progress report. As described in further 
detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1) 
Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive 
revision to the state's existing regional haze plan is needed; (2) 
provide notification to EPA (and to other state(s) that participated in 
the regional planning process) if the state determines that its 
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from 
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning 
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop 
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification 
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its 
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from 
sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze plan to 
address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its 
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure 
reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emissions from 
sources within the state.

III. What is EPA's Analysis of Tennessee's Regional Haze Progress 
Report and Adequacy Determination?

    On April 19, 2013, TDEC submitted a revision to Tennessee's 
regional haze plan to address progress made towards the RPGs for Class 
I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are 
affected by emissions from sources within Tennessee. This submittal 
also includes a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing 
regional haze plan. Tennessee has two Class I areas within its borders: 
Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock 
Wilderness Area. These areas are located partially in North Carolina 
and Tennessee. In its regional haze plan, the State also identified, 
through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back 
trajectories, four Class I areas in three neighboring states 
potentially impacted by Tennessee sources: Cohutta Wilderness Area in 
Georgia; Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky; and Linville Gorge and 
Shining Rock Wilderness areas in North Carolina. See 76 FR 33662, 33683 
(June 9, 2011).

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs

    The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements 
that must be addressed by a progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); (2) 
how Tennessee's Progress Report addressed each element; and (3) EPA's 
analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied 
each element.
1. Status of Control Measures
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of 
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze plan for

[[Page 66598]]

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
    The State evaluated the status of measures included in its 2008 
regional haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 
Specifically, in its Progress Report, Tennessee summarizes the status 
of the emissions reduction measures that were included in the final 
iteration of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of 
the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG 
modeling used by the State in developing its regional haze plan. The 
measures include, among other things, applicable federal programs 
(e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
standards), federal consent agreements, and federal and state control 
strategies for EGUs.
    The State also discusses the status of several measures that were 
not included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not 
relied upon in the initial regional haze plan to meet RPGs, including 
EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Rule and a 2011 federal consent agreement 
with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The State notes that the 
emissions reductions from these measures will help ensure that Class I 
areas impacted by Tennessee sources achieve their RPGs.
    Although Tennessee determined in its regional haze SIP that no 
additional controls for sources in the State were necessary to obtain 
reasonable progress during the first implementation period, Tennessee's 
Progress Report identifies six out-of-state sources located in the area 
of influence of one or more of Tennessee's Class I areas using the 
State's methodology for determining sources eligible for a reasonable 
progress control determination. These six sources were evaluated by 
their respective states for reasonable progress. The Progress Report 
summarizes the reasonable progress control determinations made for 
these six facilities (five facilities consisting of 12 EGUs, one non-
EGU facility) in the surrounding States of Alabama, Georgia, North 
Carolina, and South Carolina and, where applicable, provides a status 
of the required controls. Of the 12 EGUs at five facilities in these 
states, nine EGUs already have scrubbers installed and three EGUs 
located in South Carolina were retired.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Tennessee Progress Report narrative, Table 2-5, page 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the State provides an update on the status of EGUs in 
Tennessee identified by the states of Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire 
and Vermont as contributing to visibility impairment at the following 
Class I areas located in those states based on 2002 emissions: Acadia 
National Park (ME), Great Gulf Wilderness Area and Presidential Range--
Dry River Wilderness Area (NH), Lye Brook Wilderness Area (VT), and 
Brigantine Wilderness Area (NJ)). These states are members of the Mid-
Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), which identified 167 EGU 
``stacks,'' five of which are in Tennessee, as contributing 
significantly to visibility impairment at MANE-VU Class I areas in 
2002. The five Tennessee EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU are located 
at TVA's Gallatin, John Sevier, Johnsonville, and Kingston plants. 
MANE-VU asked Tennessee to control the SO2 emissions from 
these EGUs with a 90 percent control efficiency and to adopt a control 
strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2 emissions 
from non-EGU emission sources that would be equivalent to MANE-VU's 
proposed low sulfur residential fuel oil strategy.
    Tennessee summarizes in its Progress Report its February 20, 2008, 
response to the four MANE-VU states' letters at the time of the State's 
regional haze SIP development, indicating that the control schedule for 
the five identified EGU stacks is reasonable and adequately limits the 
emissions of SO2 for visibility impairment purposes. See 
Table 1 below.

       Table 1--Tennessee EGU Stacks Identified by MANE-VU States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Tennessee's February 20, 2008,
            Plant name                            response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TVA Gallatin......................  This plant uses low-sulfur fuel at
                                     an emission rate of 0.61 lbs SO2/
                                     mmBtu.
TVA John Sevier...................  TVA has announced plans to install
                                     flue gas desulfurization (FGD) by
                                     2012.
TVA Johnsonville..................  This plant is burning a low-sulfur
                                     fuel (1.5 lbs SO2/mmBtu) with TVA
                                     performing testing to determine the
                                     viability of lower sulfur coal with
                                     the objective of going to 0.9 lbs
                                     SO2/mmBtu before 2015.
TVA Kingston......................  FGD is being installed on this stack
                                     with a construction complete date
                                     scheduled for 2010.
TVA Kingston......................  FGD is being installed on this stack
                                     with a construction complete date
                                     scheduled for 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its Progress Report, Tennessee notes that these EGU 
stacks are either currently controlled with low sulfur coal or 
scrubbers with a 95 percent SO2 control efficiency, are 
shutdown, or are scheduled for shutdown by 2017.\5\ Tennessee notes 
that the requested EGU SO2 reductions are exceeded through 
improved removal efficiencies at these five EGUs, the shutdown of eight 
EGUs at the four TVA plants as of 2015, and the scheduled shutdown of 
an additional EGU by 2017, noting that additional reductions are 
expected for the remainder of the planning period. Tennessee also 
affirms that its Progress Report shows progress with reducing non-EGU 
SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Table 2-4 on pages 22-24 of Tennessee's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that Tennessee's analysis adequately addresses 
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) for the reasons discussed below. The State 
documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze 
plan in addition to describing additional measures not originally 
accounted for in the final VISTAS emissions inventory that came into 
effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze plan were 
completed. Tennessee reviewed the status of BART requirements for the 
four BART-subject sources in the State: Alcoa--South Plant, DuPont--Old 
Hickory, Eastman Chemical Company, and TVA--Cumberland Fossil Plant. 
The State's Progress Report also provides detailed information on EGU 
control strategies in its regional haze plan and the status of existing 
and future expected controls for Tennessee's EGUs because, in its 
regional haze plan, Tennessee identified SO2 emissions from 
coal-fired EGUs as the key contributor to regional haze in the VISTAS 
region. In its regional haze plan, Tennessee determined that no 
additional controls of sources in the State were reasonable for the 
first implementation period. Additionally, the State summarizes the 
emissions controls included in the regional haze plan for Tennessee 
sources in the area of influence of other states' Class I areas and the 
status of these controls.

[[Page 66599]]

2. Emissions Reductions and Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions 
achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1).
    In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, Tennessee focuses 
its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because of VISTAS' 
findings that ammonium sulfate accounted for more than 70 percent of 
the visibility-impairing pollution in the VISTAS states \6\ and that 
SO2 point source emissions are projected to represent more 
than 95 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the VISTAS 
states in 2018.\7\ As discussed in section III.A.5, below, Tennessee 
determined that sulfates continue to be the largest contributor to 
regional haze for Class I areas in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Sulfate levels on the 20 percent worst days account for 60-
70 percent of the visibility impairment at both of Tennessee's Class 
I areas. For additional information, see Tennessee's April 4, 2008, 
regional haze plan at page 13.
    \7\ For additional information, see Tennessee's April 4, 2008, 
regional haze plan at page 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Progress Report, Tennessee presents SO2 emissions 
data for 33 EGUs at seven facilities in the State that were projected 
to have controls installed, or projected to retire, by 2018 in 
Tennessee's regional haze SIP. Actual SO2 emissions 
reductions from 2002 to 2011 for these Tennessee EGUs (199,568 tons per 
year (tpy)) are already close to the projected SO2 emissions 
reductions from 2002 to 2018 estimated in Tennessee's regional haze 
plan for these EGUs (207,540 tpy).\8\ Tennessee also includes 
SO2 and NOx emissions data from 2002-2010 for EGUs in 
Tennessee subject to reporting under the Acid Rain Program. This data 
shows a decline in these emissions over this time period and that the 
SO2 reductions are higher than those estimated for these 
units in the State's regional haze SIP between 2002-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Table 2-4, page 31, and Appendix A of Tennessee's Progress 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, the State provides estimates, and 
where available, actual emissions reductions of SO2 and 
NOX at EGUs in the State resulting from the measures relied 
upon in its regional haze plan. The State appropriately focused on 
SO2 emissions from its EGUs in its Progress Report because 
the State had previously identified these emissions as the most 
significant contributors to visibility impairment at Tennessee's Class 
I areas and those areas that Tennessee sources impact.
3. Visibility Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide 
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days 
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of 
these annual values: \9\ (i) Current visibility conditions; (ii) the 
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline 
visibility conditions; and (iii) the change in visibility impairment 
over the past five years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in 
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment 
(measured in deciviews) for the 20 percent of monitored days in a 
calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility 
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR 
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee provides figures with visibility monitoring data that 
address the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for the State's 
two Class I areas. Tennessee reported current conditions as the 2006-
2010 five-year time period and used the 2000-2004 baseline period for 
its Class I areas.\10\ Table 2, below, shows the current visibility 
conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and 
baseline visibility conditions. Table 3 shows the changes in visibility 
from 2006-2010 in terms of five-year averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions 
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 
1, 1999). Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area does not have a 
visibility monitor; therefore, visibility data from Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park is used for both areas given their 
proximity. For more information see 76 FR 33669.

     Table 2--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Class I Areas in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline (2000- Current (2006-
                  Class I area                         2004)           2010)        Difference      RPG (2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days:
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park.........            30.3            26.6            -3.7            23.5
    Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock......................            30.3            26.6            -3.7            23.5
20% Best Days:
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park.........            13.6            12.3            -1.3            12.1
    Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock......................            13.6            12.3            -1.3            12.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Table 3--Changes in 5-year Visibility Averages from 2006-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Class I area                 2006            2007            2008            2009            2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days:
    Great Smoky Mountains                   30.4            30.6            29.8            28.5            26.6
     National Park..............
    Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock......            30.4            30.6            29.8            28.5            26.6
20% Best Days:
    Great Smoky Mountains                   13.3            13.2            13.1            12.4            12.3
     National Park..............
    Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock......            13.3            13.2            13.1            12.4            12.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Tennessee Class I areas saw an improvement in visibility between 
baseline and 2006-2010 conditions and an overall decline in the five-
year average visibility averages from 2006-2010.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State provides the information regarding 
visibility conditions and visibility changes necessary to meet the 
requirements of the regulation. The Progress Report includes current 
conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the years 2006-2010, the

[[Page 66600]]

difference between current visibility conditions and baseline 
visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the 
five-year period 2006-2010.
4. Emissions Tracking
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emission changes 
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or 
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated 
emissions inventory.
    In its Progress Report, Tennessee presents data from a statewide 
actual emissions inventory for 2008 and compares this data to the 
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (actual and typical emissions) 
from its regional haze plan. For the typical 2002 stationary point 
source emissions inventory, Tennessee adjusted the EGU emissions for a 
typical year so that if sources were shut down or operating above or 
below normal, the emissions are normalized to a typical emissions 
inventory year. The typical year data is used to develop projected 
typical future year emissions inventories. The pollutants inventoried 
include volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3) 
NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine 
particulate matter (PM2.5), and SO2. The 
emissions inventories include the following source classifications: 
Point, area, biogenics, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources.
    Tennessee includes the actual and typical emissions inventories 
from its regional haze plan for 2002, and summarizes emissions data 
from EPA's 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI).\11\ Tennessee's 
analysis shows that 2008 emissions are lower than both the actual and 
typical 2002 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The 2008 NEI data was the most recent NEI data available at 
the time that Tennessee submitted its Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee estimated on-road mobile source emissions in the 2008 
inventory using the MOVES model. This model tends to estimate higher 
emissions for NOX and PM than its previous counterpart, the 
MOBILE6.2 model, used by the State to estimate on-road mobile source 
emissions for the 2002 inventories. Despite the change in methodology, 
a declining trend in all pollutants can be seen between 2002 and 2008 
when comparing Tables 4 and 5 to Table 6.

                                          Table 4--2002 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Tennessee (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          85,254         221,651          39,973          49,814           1,817         413,755
Area....................................................         153,509          17,936          42,925         212,972          34,412          29,942
On-Road Mobile..........................................         179,807         238,577           3,949           5,371           6,625           9,226
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          66,450          96,827           6,458           6,819              43          10,441
Biogenics...............................................         894,214          18,081               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       1,379,234         593,072          93,305         274,976          42,897         463,364
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table 5--2002 Typical Emissions Inventory Summary for Tennessee (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          85,218         216,481          39,298          49,040           1,810         399,750
Area....................................................         153,783          18,061          43,410         213,538          34,439          29,977
On-Road Mobile..........................................         179,807         238,577           3,949           5,371           6,625           9,226
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          66,450          96,827           6,458           6,819              43          10,441
Biogenics...............................................         894,214          18,081               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       1,379,472         588,027          93,115         274,768          42,917         449,394
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table 6--2008 Actual Emissions Inventory Summary for Tennessee (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                            VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          38,155         134,162          15,551          20,734           1,193         258,033
Area....................................................         104,305          43,388          46,672         194,631          34,898          65,026
On-Road Mobile..........................................          80,476         213,973           8,441          10,445           3,167           3,903
Non-Road Mobile.........................................          50,525          35,593           3,305           3,470              38             591
Biogenics...............................................         786,087          13,682               0               0               0               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................       1,059,548         440,798          73,969         229,280          39,296         327,553
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(4). Tennessee tracked changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants from 2002-2008 for all source categories and 
analyzed trends in emissions from 2002-2008, the most current quality-
assured data available for these units at the time of progress report 
development. While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for 
emissions inventory changes is the time period since the current 
regional haze plan was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in 
developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once quality-
assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes that 
there is some flexibility in the five-year time period that states can 
select.

[[Page 66601]]

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant 
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that 
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded 
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in 
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
    In its Progress Report, Tennessee documented that sulfates, which 
are formed from SO2 emissions, continue to be the biggest 
single contributor to regional haze for Class I areas in the State and 
therefore focused its analysis on large SO2 emissions from 
point sources. In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), 
Tennessee demonstrates that sulfate contributions to visibility 
impairment have decreased from 2006 to 2010 along with an improvement 
in visibility at Class I areas in Tennessee, and examines other 
potential pollutants of concern affecting visibility at these areas. 
The State presents data for the 20 percent worst days showing that 
ammonium sulfate is responsible for 74 percent of the regional haze at 
Tennessee's two Class I areas for the period 2006-2010, with primary 
organic matter as the next largest contributor at 12 percent. The State 
notes that there are no significant changes in anthropogenic emissions 
that have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving 
visibility in Class I areas impacted by Tennessee sources. Furthermore, 
the Progress Report shows that the State is on track to meeting its 
2018 RPGs for Class I areas in Tennessee. For these reasons, EPA 
proposes to conclude that Tennessee's Progress Report has adequately 
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5).
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current 
regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, 
to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the 
state.
    The State believes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for 
the Tennessee Class I areas and will not impede Class I areas outside 
of Tennessee from meeting their RPGs based on the trends in visibility 
and emissions presented in its Progress Report. In its Progress Report, 
Tennessee provided reconstructed light extinction figures for the 20 
percent worst days for Great Smoky Mountains National Park for 2006 
through 2010, noting similar results at Joyce Kilmer Class I area. The 
20 percent worst days extinction clearly demonstrates that sulfates 
continue to be the largest contributor to visibility impairment at 
these Class I areas, with stationary point sources being the largest 
source of SO2 emissions in Tennessee. As identified in 
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 and Appendix A of the Progress Report, 
SO2 emissions from EGUs in Tennessee have decreased from 
2002 to 2011. Also, the emissions data provided in Table 3-1 of the 
Progress Report show a declining trend in NOX emissions from 
2002 to 2010 for EGUs in Tennessee. Tennessee also provides visibility 
data for the State's two Class I areas (Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area) and the Class I areas 
potentially impacted by the State's sources (Cohutta Wilderness Area 
(Cohutta) in Georgia, Mammoth Cave National Park (Mammoth Cave) in 
Kentucky, and Linville Gorge and Shining Rock Wilderness Areas in North 
Carolina)) and notes that this data shows that these areas are on track 
to achieve their RPGs by 2018.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See pages 35-37 and 48-55 of Tennessee's Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative 
assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and 
other readily available information, including expected emissions 
reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not 
yet become effective. In its assessment, the State references the 
improving visibility trends and the downward emissions trends in the 
State, with a focus on SO2 emissions from Tennessee EGUs. 
These trends support the State's determination that the State's 
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas within 
and outside the State impacted by Tennessee sources.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility 
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to 
the monitoring strategy are necessary.
    Tennessee's Progress Report summarizes the existing monitoring 
network in the State to monitor visibility in Tennessee's Class I areas 
and concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility 
monitoring strategy are necessary. The primary monitoring network for 
regional haze, both nationwide and in Tennessee, is the IMPROVE 
network. There is currently one IMPROVE site in Tennessee which serves 
as the monitoring site for both the Great Smoky Mountains National Park 
and Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area.
    The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 
network for tracking visibility trends at Class I areas in Tennessee. 
Tennessee states that data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network 
will be used nearly continuously for preparing the 5-year progress 
reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis 
of the preceding five years of data, and thus, the State notes that the 
monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible 
and to be kept up to date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web 
System Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other Regional 
Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and 
data analysis tools.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, some ongoing long-term 
limited monitoring supported by Federal Land Managers provides 
additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Tennessee 
benefits from the data from these measurements, but is not responsible 
for associated funding decisions to maintain these measurements into 
the future.
    In addition, TDEC and the local air agencies in the State operate a 
comprehensive PM2.5 network of the filter-based federal 
reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, and filter-based 
speciated monitors. These PM2.5 measurements help the TDEC 
characterize air pollution levels in areas across the State, and 
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near the 
Class I areas in Tennessee.
    EPA proposes to conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 
the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the 
IMPROVE monitoring network; assessed its entire visibility monitoring 
network, including additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5 
monitors, used to further understand visibility trends in the State; 
and determined that no changes to its monitoring strategy are 
necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four 
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made 
in the progress report. The following section

[[Page 66602]]

summarizes: (1) The action taken by Tennessee under 40 CFR 51.308(h); 
(2) Tennessee's rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA's 
analysis and proposed determination regarding the State's action.
    In its Progress Report, Tennessee took the action provided for by 
40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative 
declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional 
haze plan requires no further substantive revision at this time to 
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The 
basis for the State's negative declaration is the findings from the 
Progress Report, including the findings that: Visibility has improved 
at Class I areas in Tennessee and at Class I areas impacted by sources 
in Tennessee; overall emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from 
the State's sources have decreased from 2002 to 2008 by approximately 
25 percent \13\ and emissions of SO2 from certain EGUs in 
Tennessee have decreased by approximately 200,000 tons from 2002-2010; 
\14\ and additional EGU control measures not relied upon in the State's 
regional haze plan have occurred or will occur in the implementation 
period and are expected to continue to trend downward. EPA proposes to 
conclude that Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) 
because the visibility trends at the Class I areas impacted by the 
State's sources and the emissions trends of the State's largest 
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants indicate that the RPGs for 
Class I areas impacted by source in Tennessee will be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See page 42 of Tennessee's Progress Report.
    \14\ As discussed earlier, these EGUs were projected to have 
controls installed, or projected to retire, by 2018 in Tennessee's 
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's Regional Haze Progress 
Report SIP revision, submitted by the State on April 19, 2013, as 
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 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 proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 15, 2016.
Kenneth R. Lapierre,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-23291 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P