### 33662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Installation Prohibitions

(f) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any HP fuel pump P/N E4A–30– 100–000, onto any engine.

(g) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any engine equipped with HP fuel pump P/N E4A–30–100–000, onto any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

(i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011–0039, dated March 8, 2011, Austro Engine GmbH Work Instruction No. WI–MSB–E4–009, dated October 7, 2010, and Austro Engine GmbH MSB No. MSB–E4–009/2, dated March 4, 2011, for related information. For a copy of this service information, contact Austro Engine GmbH, Rudolf-Diesel-Strasse 11, A–2700 Weiner Neustadt, Austria, phone: +43 2622 23000; fax: +43 2622 23000–2711, or go to: http://www.austroengine.at. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.

(j) For more information about this AD, contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238–7176; fax: (781) 238–7199;
e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 2, 2011.
Peter A. White, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2011–14235 Filed 6–8–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0786–201033; FRL– 9317–6]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of**  **Tennessee; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a
revision to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on April 4, 2008, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the

‘‘regional haze program ’’ ). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for Tennessee on the basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Tennessee SIP. Also in this action, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of this same SIP revision
because of the deficiencies in the State’s April 2008 regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2009–0786, by one of the following methods:

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

2. E-mail: spann.jane@epa.gov.

3. Fax: 404–562–9029.

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0786, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Jane Spann, Acting Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–

0786. ’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be
made available online at: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an ‘‘ anonymous access ’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the **FOR**

**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,


### 33663 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

1 EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘ Technical Support Document for Tennessee Regional Haze Submittal, ’’ is included in the public docket for this

action. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562–9061 and by
electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele Notarianni can be reached at telephone number (404) 562–9031 and by
electronic mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? II. What is the background for EPA’s proposed action? A. The Regional Haze Problem B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing

Regional Haze III. What are the requirements for the regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and

Current Visibility Conditions C. Determination of Reasonable Progress

Goals (RPGs) D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

(BART) E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) F. Coordinating Regional Haze and

Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS G. Monitoring Strategy and Other

Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal

Land Managers (FLMs) IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to the regional haze requirements?
A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR
B. Remand of the CAIR C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially

Affected by the CAIR Remand D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed

Limited Approval V. What is EPA’s analysis of Tennessee’s regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and

Current Visibility Conditions 1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural

Conditions 4. Uniform Rate of Progress C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With

Federal and State Control Requirements 2. Modeling To Support the LTS and

Determine Visibility Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress 3. Relative Contributions to Visibility

Impairment: Pollutants, Source Categories, and Geographic Areas 4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress Controls in Tennessee and Surrounding

Areas 5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in

the Reasonable Progress Analysis

6. BART

7. RPGs D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional

Haze Requirements E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
2. Consultation With the FLMs
G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year

Progress Reports VI. What action is EPA proposing? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing to
take?

EPA is proposing a limited approval of Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, SIP revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3)
because the revision as a whole strengthens the Tennessee SIP. However, the Tennessee SIP relies on CAIR, an EPA rule, to satisfy key elements of the regional haze requirements. Due to the remand of CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008), the revision does not meet all of the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations as set forth in sections 169A
and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300–308. As a result, EPA is concurrently proposing a limited disapproval of Tennessee’s SIP revision. The revision nevertheless represents an improvement over the current SIP, and makes considerable progress in fulfilling the applicable CAA regional haze program requirements. This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for EPA’s proposed limited approval and limited disapproval actions.

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA has identified as preventing a full approval of this SIP revision relate to the status and impact of CAIR on certain interrelated and required elements of the regional haze program. At the time the Tennessee regional haze SIP was being developed, the State’s reliance on CAIR was fully consistent with EPA’s regulations, see 70 FR 39104, 39142– 4143 (July 6, 2005). CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires significant
reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants, and the reliance on CAIR by
affected states as an alternative to requiring BART for electrical generating units (EGUs) had specifically been upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group

v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir. 2006). In 2008, however, the DC Circuit
remanded CAIR back to EPA. See North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The
Court found CAIR to be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded
the rule to EPA without vacatur because
it found that ‘‘ allowing CAIR to remain in effect until it is replaced by a rule consistent with [the court’s] opinion would at least temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR. ’’
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In response to the court’s decision, EPA has proposed a new rule to address interstate transport of NO X and SO 2 in the eastern United States.

See 75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010) ( ‘‘the Transport Rule ’’ ). EPA explained in that proposal that the Transport Rule, when finalized, will replace CAIR and the CAIR Federal implementation plans (FIPs). In other words, the CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements, which were found to be illegal by the DC Circuit,
will not remain in force after the Transport Rule requirements are in place. Given the status of CAIR, EPA is proposing to find that Tennessee may not rely on CAIR in its present form to provide reductions to satisfy the reasonable progress and BART requirements of the regional haze

program.

While CAIR will not remain in effect indefinitely, it is currently in force. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. By granting limited approval of Tennessee’s regional haze SIP, EPA will allow the State to rely on the emissions
reductions associated with CAIR for so long as CAIR is in place. EPA believes
that this course of action is consistent with the court’s intention to keep CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR. ’’ Id, at 1178.

II. What is the background for EPA’s proposed action?

A. The regional haze problem

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit


### 33664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.

3 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and Tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to

‘‘ mandatory Class I Federal areas. ’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a

‘‘ Federal Land Manager. ’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ‘‘ Class I area’’ in this action,

we mean a ‘‘ mandatory Class I Federal area. ’’

4 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74–2–4). fine particles (PM 2.5 ) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors ( e.g., SO 2 , NO X , and in some cases, ammonia (NH 3 ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see.

PM 2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the ‘‘ Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual

Environments ’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range 2 in many Class I areas ( i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the

‘‘ prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 3 which impairment results from manmade air pollution. ’’ On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is

‘‘reasonably attributable ’’ to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’

. See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 4 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17,

2007.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Successful implementation of theregional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among states, tribal governments and various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.

Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged the states and
Tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and Tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to regional haze.

The Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s implementing regulations require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common


### 33665 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

5 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999). 6 The set of ‘‘ major stationary sources ’’ potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility
at one deciview. 5

The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs
must contain measures that ensure

‘‘reasonable progress ’’ toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.

To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment
at each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired ( ‘‘best’’ ) and 20 percent most impaired ( ‘‘worst’’ ) visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at http:// www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh

_ envcurhr

_

gd.pdf ), (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance ’’ ), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–004 located at http:// www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh

_ tpurhr

_

gd.pdf )), (hereinafter referred

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance ’’ ).

For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007,

‘‘baseline visibility conditions ’’ were the starting points for assessing ‘‘ current’’ visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs ( i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one
for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for

‘‘reasonable progress ’’ toward achieving natural ( i.e., ‘‘background ’’ ) visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.

States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected
sources. States must demonstrate in
their SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, ( ‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance ’’ ), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp.4–2, 5–1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to
as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress ’’ or the

‘‘ glidepath ’’ ) and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas ( ‘‘ Class I state ’’ ) must also consult with potentially

‘‘ contributing states, ’’ i.e., other nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources 6 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘ Best Available Retrofit Technology ’’ as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such ‘‘ BARTeligible ’’ sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility


### 33666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘ BART Guidelines ’’ ) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of

sources.

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO 2 , NO X , and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining whether

VOC or NH 3 compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.

Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the number of emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources’ impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciview.

In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, described as

‘‘ BART-eligible sources ’’ in the RHR, and
document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each
factor.

A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state has made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4)); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate
that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the

source.

As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration for

CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate,
and maintain BART for emissions of

SO 2 and NO X
. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs.
The LTS must include ‘‘ enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals ’’ for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from,
the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

When a state’s emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.

States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how each of the following
seven factors listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date of submission of the state’s first plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for


### 33667 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and
the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state’s LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through

‘‘ participation ’’ in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether RPGs will be met.

The SIP must also provide for the following:

• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;

• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;

• Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and where possible, in electronic format;

• Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory periodically; and

• Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.

The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter.
Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be

met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state’s visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR to the regional haze requirements?

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR

CAIR, as originally promulgated, requires 28 states and the District of
Columbia to reduce emissions of SO 2 and NO X that significantly contribute to, or interfere with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes emission budgets or caps for SO 2 and NO X for states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind states and requires the significantly contributing states to submit SIP revisions that implement these budgets. States have the flexibility
to choose which control measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, includingparticipation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO 2, NO X -annual, and NO X -ozone season emissions.

B. Remand of the CAIR

On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit
issued its decision to vacate and remand
both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in response to EPA’s petition for rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. The Court thereby left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in
order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the court’s opinion. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at
1178. The Court directed EPA to

‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws ’’ consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing that action. Because CAIR accordingly has been remanded to the Agency without vacatur, CAIR and the CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in subject states.

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR
Remand

The following is a summary of the elements of the regional haze SIPs that are potentially affected by the remand of CAIR. Many states relied on CAIR as an
alternative to BART for SO 2 and NO X for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states established RPGs that reflect the improvement in visibility expected to result from controls planned for or already installed
on sources within the state to meet the CAIR provisions for this implementation period for specified pollutants. Many states relied upon
their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their states to provide the legal requirements which leads to these planned controls, and did not include
enforceable measures in the LTS in the regional haze SIP submission to ensure
these reductions. States also submitted demonstrations showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond
CAIR would be reasonable for this implementation period. Due to EPA’s


### 33668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

7 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-related research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.

8 The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is summarized in Appendix B.2 of the Tennessee Regional Haze submittal and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http:// vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ GrayLit/016

_IMPROVEeqReview/ IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc.,

2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September

2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ Publications/GrayLit/029

_NaturalCondII/natural hazelevelsIIreport.ppt. need to address the concerns of the
Court as outlined in its decision remanding CAIR, EPA believes it would be inappropriate to fully approve states’ LTSs that rely upon the emissions reductions predicted to result from CAIR to meet the BART requirement for
EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states’ regional haze SIPs. For this reason, EPA cannot fully approve regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR for emission
reduction measures. EPA therefore proposes to grant limited approval and limited disapproval of the Tennessee
SIP. The next section discusses how the Agency proposes to address these
deficiencies.

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval

EPA is intending to propose to issue limited approvals of those regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR to address the impact of emissions from a state’s own EGUs. Limited approval results in approval of the entire regional
haze submission and all its elements. EPA is taking this approach because an affected state’s SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the implementation of those measures by the state and having Federal approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being included
in the state’s SIP.

EPA also intends to propose to issue limited disapprovals for regional haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR concurrently with the proposals for limited approval. As explained in the 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, ‘‘ [t]hrough a limited approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, disapprove the rule * * * for not meeting all of the applicable requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he limited disapproval is a rulemaking action, and it is subject to
notice and comment. ’’ Final limited disapproval of a SIP submittal does not affect the Federal enforceability of the measures in the subject SIP revision nor prevent state implementation of these measures. The legal effects of the final limited disapproval are to provide EPA the authority to issue a FIP at any time, and to obligate the Agency to take such action no more than two years after the
effective date of the final limited disapproval action.

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Tennessee’s regional haze submittal?

On April 4, 2008, TDEC’s Division of
Air Pollution Control submitted
revisions to the Tennessee SIP to address regional haze in the State’s Class I areas as required by EPA’s RHR. A. Affected Class I Areas

Tennessee has two Class I areas within its borders: Great SmokyMountains National Park and JoyceKilmer Slickrock Wilderness Area.
These Class I areas also fall within the geographic boundaries of North Carolina. Therefore, both Tennessee and North Carolina are responsible for developing their own regional haze SIPs
that address these Class I areas. The two states worked together to determine appropriate RPGs, including consulting with other states that impact the two Class I areas, as discussed in V.F.1. In addition, both Tennessee and North Carolina are responsible for describing their own long-term emission strategies, their role in the consultation processes, and how their particular state SIP meets the other requirements in EPA’s regional haze regulations.

The Tennessee regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility improvement at each of these Class I
areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In developing the LTS for each area,
Tennessee considered both emission
sources inside and outside of Tennessee that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Tennessee’s Class I areas.
The State also identified and considered
emission sources within Tennessee that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included
the two areas in Tennessee and those areas affected by emissions from

Tennessee.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions

As required by the RHR and in
accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, Tennessee
calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as summarized below (and as
further described in sections III.B.1 and
III.B.2. of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register action).

1. Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions

Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction using
default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for estimating light extinction
from the estimated natural concentrations of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE monitors).
As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states

to use ‘‘refined ’’ or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to
estimate the values that characterize the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is to develop and justify the use of
alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to
use the ‘‘ new IMPROVE equation ’’ that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005. 7 The purpose of this refinement to the

‘‘ old IMPROVE equation ’’ is to provide
more accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light extinction. Tennessee opted to use the
default estimates for the natural
concentrations combined with the ‘‘ new IMPROVE equation, ’’ for all of its areas. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area by VISTAS.

The new IMPROVE equation takes
into account the most recent review of
the science 8 and it accounts for the


### 33669 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

9 The term, ‘‘ dv, ’’ is the abbreviation for

‘‘ deciview. ’’ effect of particle size distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity
enhancement factors are used for small and large size distributions of
ammonium sulfate and ammonium
nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new IMPROVE equations.

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions

The Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness Area does not contain an
IMPROVE monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most representative monitoring available for the 2000–2004 period to establish baseline visibility conditions,
in consultation with EPA. Tennessee
used and EPA concurs with the use of
2000–2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at Great Smoky MountainsNational Park for the Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness Area. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is nearest and contiguous to the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, and the areas possess similar characteristics, such as meteorology and topography.

TDEC estimated baseline visibility
conditions at both Tennessee Class I areas using available monitoring data from a single IMPROVE monitoring site in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. As explained in section III.B, for the first regional haze SIP, baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days
at each Tennessee Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Great Smoky Mountains National Park for the period
2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for data completeness. See page 2–8 of EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Table 3.3–1 from Appendix G of the Tennessee regional haze SIP, also provided in section III.B.3 of EPA’s TSD to this action, lists the 20 percent best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000–2004 for Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This data is also provided at the following
Web site: http://www.metro4- sesarm.org/vistas/

SesarmBext

_20BW.htm.

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural
Conditions

For the Tennessee Class I areas, baseline visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days are approximately 30 deciviews. Natural visibility in these areas is predicted to be approximately 11 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. The natural and baseline
conditions for Tennessee’s Class I areas for both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.



### TABLE 

### 1—N ATURAL 

### B ACKGROUND AND 

### B ASELINE 

### C ONDITIONS FOR THE 

### T ENNESSEE 

### C LASS 

### I A REAS

Class I area Average for 20 percent worst

days (dv 9 ) Average for 20 percent best

days (dv)

Natural Background Conditions: Great Smoky Mountains National Park ............................................................................................ ................ 11.05 4.54 Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ......................................................................................... ................. 11.05 4.54 Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004): Great Smoky Mountains National Park ............................................................................................ ................ 30.28 13.58 Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ......................................................................................... ................. 30.28 13.58

4. Uniform Rate of Progress

In setting the RPGs, Tennessee considered the uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 ( ‘‘ glidepath ’’ ) and the
emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to the glidepath.

The State’s implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, for its two Class I areas. Tennessee constructed the graph for the worst days ( i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to the level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for its two areas. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, straight line spanning from
baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of the
SIP. Tennessee’s SIP shows that the State’s RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).

For the Tennessee Class I areas, the overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is
the difference between baseline visibility of 30.28 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.05 deciviews, i.e., 19.23 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of 0.321 deciviews per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Great Smoky Mountain National Park and the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, Tennessee would need to project at least 4.49 deciviews over the first implementation period ( i.e.,
0.321 deciviews × 14 years = 4.49 deciviews) of visibility improvement
from the 30.28 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or
below 25.79 deciviews in 2018. As discussed below in section V.C.7,


### 33670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

10 See NRDC v. EPA, 489F.3d 1250. ‘‘ Reasonable Progress Goals, ’’ Tennessee projects a 6.78 deciview improvement to visibility from the 30.28 deciview
baseline to 23.50 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 1.47 deciview improvement to 12.11 deciviews from the baseline visibility of 13.58 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

As described in section III.E of thisaction, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by the state for achieving its RPGs.
Tennessee’s LTS for the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, state, and local controls that take effect
in the State from the end of the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Tennessee LTS was developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification
of the emission units within Tennessee and in surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State’s two Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls required or expected under Federal and state regulations for the 2004–2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the State’s Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the
identified emission units to determine if
additional reasonable controls were required.

CAIR is also an element of
Tennessee’s LTS. CAIR rule revisions were approved into the Tennessee SIP
in 2007 and 2009. See 72 FR 46388 (Aug. 20, 2007); 74 FR 61535 (Nov. 25, 2009). Tennessee opted to rely on CAIR emission reduction requirements to satisfy the BART requirements for SO 2 and NO X from EGUs. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, Tennessee only required its BART-eligible EGUs to evaluate PM emissions for determining whether they are subject to BART, and, if applicable, for performing a BART
control assessment. See section III.D. of
this notice for further details. Additionally, as discussed below in section V.C.5, Tennessee concluded that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for reasonable progress for its EGUs for this first implementation period. Prior to the remand of CAIR,
EPA believed the State’s reliance on CAIR for specific BART and reasonable progress provisions affecting its EGUs was adequate, as detailed later in this notice. As explained in section IV. of this notice, the Agency proposes today to issue a limited approval and a proposed limited disapproval of the State’s regional haze SIP revision.

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control Requirements

The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance
from Tennessee. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants NO X , PM, and SO 2 . The
BART Guidelines direct states to exercise judgment in deciding whether
VOC and NH 3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in section V.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of VOC and NH 3 do not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions inventories were also developed for NH 3 and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Tennessee’s regional haze analyses,
Tennessee did not further evaluate NH 3 and VOC emissions sources for potential
controls under BART or reasonable

progress.

VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source classifications:Stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point
sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category could be significant. VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory categories of: (a) stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) mobile sources ( i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the countywide level.

There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented that VISTAS and Tennessee anticipate
will reduce emissions between the end of the baseline period and 2018.
Emission reductions from these control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement by 2018 in the Tennessee Class I areas. The control programs relied upon by Tennessee include CAIR; EPA’s NO X SIP Call; North Carolina’s CleanSmokestacks Act; Georgia multipollutant rule; consent decrees for Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and American Electric Power;

NO X and/or VOC reductions from the
control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; North Carolina’s NO X Reasonably Available Control Technology state rule for Philip Morris
USA and Norandal USA in the
Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 1997 8- hour ozone nonattainment area; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel (2007) engine standards for on-road trucks and buses;Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for onroad vehicles; Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel
rules. Controls from various Federal
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These
MACT rules include the industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to

as ‘‘ Industrial Boiler MACT ’’ ), the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year
MACT standards.

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur
and remand of the Industrial Boiler
MACT Rule. 10 This MACT was vacated since it was directly affected by the
vacatur and remand of the Commercial
and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition Rule. Notwithstanding the vacatur of this rule, the VISTAS states, including Tennessee,
decided to leave these controls in the modeling for their regional haze SIPs since it is believed that by 2018, EPA will have re-promulgated an industrial
boiler MACT rule or the states will have addressed the issue through state-level case-by-case MACT reviews in accordance with section 112(j) of the CAA. EPA finds this approach acceptable for the following reasons. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler
MACT rule to address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006), and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011, (76 FR 15608), giving Tennessee time to assure the required controls are in place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018. In the absence of an
established MACT rule for boilers and process heaters, the statutory language in section 112(j) of the CAA specifies a


### 33671 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

schedule for the incorporation of enforceable MACT-equivalent limits into the title V operating permits of
affected sources. Should circumstances warrant the need to implement section 112(j) of the CAA for industrial boilers, EPA would expect, in this case, that compliance with case-by-case MACT
limits for industrial boilers would occur no later than January 2015, which is well before the 2018 RPGs for regional haze. In addition, the RHR requires that any resulting differences between emissions projections and actual emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-year review prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. The expected reductions due to the original, vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule were relatively small compared to the State’s total SO 2 , PM 2.5 , and coarse particulate matter (PM 10 ) emissions in 2018 ( i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO 2 , PM 2.5 , and PM 10 inventory), and not likely to affect any of Tennessee’s modeling conclusions. Thus, if there is a need to address discrepancies such that projected

emissions reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT were greater than actual reductions achieved by the replacement MACT, EPA would not expect that this would affect the adequacy of the existing Tennessee regional haze SIP.

Below in Tables 2 and 3 are

summaries of the 2002 baseline and

2018 estimated emission inventories for

Tennessee.



### TABLE 

### 2—2002 E MISSIONS 

### I NVENTORY 

### S UMMARY FOR 

### T ENNESSEE

[Tons per year]

VOC NO X PM 2.5 PM 10 NH 3 SO 2

Point ................................................................................. 85,254 221,651 39,973 49,814 1,817 413,75 5 Area .................................................................................. 153,509 17,936 42,925 212,972 34,412 29,9 42 On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 179,807 238,577 3,949 5,371 6,625 9,226 Off-Road Mobile ............................................................... 66,450 96,827 6,458 6,819 43 10,441

Total .......................................................................... 485,020 574,991 93,305 274,976 42,897 463,364



### TABLE 

### 3—2018 E MISSIONS 

### I NVENTORY 

### S UMMARY FOR 

### T ENNESSEE

[Tons per year]

VOC NO X PM 2.5 PM 10 NH 3 SO 2

Point ................................................................................. 93,432 94,234 46,680 57,940 2,454 169,354 Area .................................................................................. 183,110 20,002 48,265 248,086 36,376 32,0 73 On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 67,324 69,385 1,544 3,092 9,021 948 Off-road Mobile ................................................................ 45,084 70,226 4,403 4,672 55 5,207

Total .......................................................................... 388,950 253,847 100,892 313,790 47,906 207,582

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress

VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 southeastern states, including Tennessee. The modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:

• Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM 2.5, and regional haze regulatory modeling studies.

• Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire and biogenic emission sources for photochemical grid models. • Air Quality Model: The EPA’s Models–3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was also subjected to outside peer review.

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12
kilometer cells that covers the 10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid
cells that covers the continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent with EPA’s Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze

, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, August 2005, updated November 2005 ( ‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance ’’ ).


### 33672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of statistical parameters from the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress and examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model performance to be acceptable,
VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Tennessee provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required analyses
used to determine the State’s LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the VISTAS model performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze
assessments for the Tennessee LTS and regional haze SIP.

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source Categories, and Geographic Areas

An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit of further reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.

Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution assessment, based on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the major
contributor to PM 2.5 mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2000–2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for greater than 70 percent of the calculated light extinction at Class I areas in the Southern Appalachians. In particular, for Great Smoky Mountains National Park, sulfate particles resulting
from SO 2 emissions contribute roughly 84 percent to the calculated light extinction on the haziest days. In contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed less than five percent of the calculated light extinction at VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted for 10–20 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days.

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either ‘‘ coastal ’’ or

‘‘ inland ’’ (sometimes referred to as

‘‘ mountain ’’ ) sites, based on common/ similar characteristics ( e.g. terrain, geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types of Class I areas.
Tennessee’s Class I areas are both

‘‘ inland ’’ areas.

Results from VISTAS’ emission sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate particles resulting from SO 2 emissions
are the dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at all Class I areas in VISTAS, including the two Tennessee
areas. Tennessee concluded that reducing SO 2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility
benefits for the Tennessee Class I areas.
Because ammonium nitrate is a small
contributor to PM 2.5 mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which include Joyce-Kilmer Wilderness Area and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the benefits of reducing NO X and NH 3 emissions at
these sites are small.

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, including Tennessee. The sensitivity analyses also show that reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I

areas.

Tennessee considered the factors listed in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)
and in section III.E. of this action to develop its LTS as described below. Tennessee, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), fine soils (a product of
construction activities and activities that generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively minor contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I areas in Tennessee. Tennessee considered agricultural and forestry smoke management techniques to address visibility impacts from elemental carbon. TDEC is currently working with the Tennessee Division of Forestry to develop a smoke management program that utilizes basic smoke management practices and
addresses the issues laid out in the

EPA’s 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy
on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the State considered those activities that generate fugitive dust, including construction activities. With regard to construction activities, the Tennessee Department of Transportation has agreed to include
discussions related to the control of road construction project dust emissions as part of its contract bid specifications. In addition, TDEC’s Rule 1200–3–8–.03 requires additional control measures in air source operating permits to control
dust emissions. The State has chosen not to develop controls for fine soils in this first implementation period because of its relatively minor contribution to visibility impairment. With regard to ammonia emissions from agricultural sources, TDEC will wait for the results of emissions sampling and Best Management Practices arising from EPA’s Combined Animal Feeding Operation Consent Order Agreements prior to initiating any control measures for agricultural ammonia. EPA concurs
with the State’s technical demonstration


### 33673 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

11 Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and recommend reasonable measures to remedy existingand prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains ’’

. States cooperated with FLMs, the USEPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August

2002. 12 See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from the Tennessee SIP, Appendix H. showing that elemental carbon, fine soils and ammonia are not significant contributors to visibility in the State’s Class I areas, and therefore, finds that Tennessee has adequately satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register action and Tennessee’s SIP provide more details on the State’s
consideration of these factors for

Tennessee’s LTS.

The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO 2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific to Tennessee, the VISTAS sensitivity analysis projects visibility benefits in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Joyce-Kilmer Slickrock Wilderness
Area from SO 2 reductions from EGUs in eight of the 10 VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Additional, smaller benefits are projected from SO 2 emission reductions from non-utility industrial point sources. SO 2 emissions contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions are comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states’ contributions, and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS region is predicted to provide less significant improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, Tennessee concluded that reducing SO 2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point
sources in certain VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for
the Tennessee Class I areas. The State chose to focus solely on evaluating

certain SO 2 sources contributing to visibility impairment to the State’s Class
I areas for additional emission reductions for reasonable progress in this first implementation period (described in sections V.4. and V.5. of this notice). EPA agrees with the State’s analyses and conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories that most contribute to visibility impairment in the Tennessee Class I areas, and finds the State’s approach to focus on developing a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point sources of SO 2 emissions to be appropriate.

SO 2 sources for which it is
demonstrated that no additional
controls are reasonable in this current implementation period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional
controls on these SO 2 sources evaluated in the first implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress
toward natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as visibility conditions change over time.

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable Progress Controls in Tennessee and Surrounding

Areas

As discussed in section V.C.3. of this notice, through comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative (SAMI), 11 the VISTAS states concluded that sulfate particles resulting from SO 2 emissions account for the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas in VISTAS states, including those in Tennessee. Utility and non-utility
boilers are the main sources of SO 2 emissions within the southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology for Tennessee, which
enables the State to focus its reasonable progress analysis on those geographic regions and source categories that impact visibility at each of its Class I areas. Recognizing that there was neither sufficient time nor adequate
resources available to evaluate all emission units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each Class I area that Tennessee’s sources impact, the
State established a threshold to
determine which emission units would be evaluated for reasonable progress control. In applying this methodology,
TDEC first calculated the fractional contribution to visibility impairment
from all emission units within the SO 2 AOI for each of its Class I areas, and those surrounding areas in other states potentially impacted by emissions from
emission units in Tennessee. The State then identified those emission units with a contribution of one percent or more to the visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and evaluated
each of these units for control measures for reasonable progress, using the following four ‘‘reasonable progress
factors ’’ as required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (iv) remaining useful
life of the emission unit.

Tennessee’s SO 2 AOI methodology captured greater than 60 percent of the total point source SO 2 contribution to visibility impairment in the two Class I areas in Tennessee, and required an
evaluation of 15 emission units. Capturing a significantly greater percentage of the total contribution would involve an evaluation of many
more emission units that have substantially less impact. EPA believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented for the Class I areas in Tennessee is a reasonable methodology to prioritize the most significant contributors to regional haze and to identify sources to assess for reasonable progress control in the State’s Class I areas. The approach is consistent with EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and Tennessee was objective and based on several analyses, which included a large
universe of emission units within and surrounding the State of Tennessee and
all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an analysis of the VISTAS emission units affecting nearby Class I areas surrounding the VISTAS states
that are located in other RPOs’ Class I

areas. 5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress Analysis

TDEC identified 15 emission units at 10 facilities in Tennessee (see Table 4)
with SO 2 emissions that were above the
State’s minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation because they were modeled to fall within the sulfate AOI of any Class I area and have a one percent or greater contribution to the sulfate visibility impairment to at
least one Class I area. 12 Of these 15 units, 13 emission units were exempted from preparing a reasonable progress analysis because they were already subject to BART or CAIR, had shut down, or provided additional information documenting that they had been improperly identified as meeting


### 33674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the State’s minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation.



### TABLE 

### 4—T ENNESSEE 

### F ACILITIES 

### S UBJECT TO 

### R EASONABLE 

### P ROGRESS 

### A NALYSIS

Facilities With a Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis: Bowater Newsprint and Directory—Calhoun (Bowater), Unit 015 Invista—Hixon/Chattanooga (INVISTA), Unit 0002 Facilities With Unit(s) Exempt from Reasonable Progress Analysis: EGUs Subject to BART and CAIR Tennessee Valley Authority—Cumberland Facility, Units 001, 002 Tennessee Valley Authority—Bull Run Facility, Unit 001 Non-EGUs Subject to BART Alcoa—South Plant, Units 09, 16, 17 Eastman Chemical Company Units 021520, 020101, 261501 Shut down Facility Intertrade Holdings, Inc. Exempted With Updated Information A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company APAC–TN, Inc./Harrison Construction Division
U.S. DOE—Y–12 Plant

A. Facilities With an Emissions Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis

TDEC analyzed whether SO 2 controls should be required for two facilities, Bowater Newsprint and Directory— Calhoun, unit 015 (Bowater), and Invista-Hixson/Chattanooga, unit 0002 (INVISTA), based on a consideration of
the four factors set out in the CAA and EPA’s regulations. For the limited purpose of evaluating the cost of compliance for the reasonable progress assessment in this first regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs, TDEC concluded that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a greater economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. Using the CAIR rule as a guide, a cost of $2,000 per ton of SO 2 controlled or
reduced was used as a determiner of
cost effectiveness.

1. Bowater

Bowater is a Kraft pulp mill with three coal-fired boilers burning 1.1 percent sulfur coal. Bowater presented
information and data in its reasonable progress control analysis that led TDEC
to conclude that Bowater should not be required to install SO 2 post-combustion
controls or to switch to lower sulfur fuels during this first regional haze SIP implementation period. Bowater evaluated switching to a lower sulfur (0.6 percent) western sub-bituminous
coal and determined that it is not technologically feasible since Bowater’s boilers were designed to burn eastern bituminous coal, and the different physical properties ( e.g., ash fusion temperature, etc. ) of western subbituminous coal make its use incompatible with the Bowater boilers. Bowater also evaluated installing SO 2 wet scrubbers, which is technicallyfeasible, but the estimated costeffectiveness exceeds $5,000 per ton of

SO 2 removed, which exceeds the State’s $2,000 cost-effectiveness threshold for
reasonableness. Other environmental factors affecting the application of wet scrubbers are the water scarcity in the local area due to seasonal droughts and the treatment and disposal of wastewater and sludge.

2. INVISTA

INVISTA produces polymers and fibers and operates three coal-fired
boilers. SO 2 emissions from these boilers averaged 944 tons per year over three years (2004, 2005, and 2006). The current title V permit limits coal sulfur content to 1.25 percent; however, actual sulfur content has averaged nearly 1.0 percent over these three years. INVISTA evaluated the following options: low sulfur coals, wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) System (wet scrubbers), Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA) System, Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) with Limestone, and Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) System. Of these options, only low sulfur coal fell below the $2,000 per ton cost threshold TDEC
used to determine reasonableness.

A wet FGD system was determined to be a technically feasible option for
control of SO 2 emissions from the boilers used by INVISTA, but cost prohibitive. Cost-effectiveness was calculated to be approximately $3,508 per ton of SO 2 removed, which exceeds
the State’s cost threshold for reasonableness. In assessing other environmental impacts, the company raised the possibility of causing a steam plume from the installation of a
scrubber. It is not known whether the possible presence of a persistent, highly opaque steam plume from the scrubbers’ stacks would be an issue. If it is,
additional costs would be incurred from installing a separate stack to address this problem.

Similarly, an SDA system was determined to be a technically feasible control option but also cost prohibitive. The cost-effectiveness of applying SDA
to this unit is estimated to be at least $4,000 per ton of SO 2 removed. In addition, this option has the potential to result in an overall ash with properties
so different from the current ash that it will no longer be acceptable for sale to cement kilns. If that becomes the case, INVISTA would be required to truck the ash offsite for disposal in a landfill at a
substantial increase in cost relative to the current disposal cost.

As was the case for FGD and SDA, TDEC determined that the DSI system was also technically feasible but cost prohibitive as a control option. The cost-effectiveness of applying DSI was estimated to be at least $4,037 per ton
of SO 2 removed. As with SDA, this option could result in an overall ash with properties so different from the ash that is currently produced that it will no longer be acceptable for sale to cement kilns. If that becomes the case, INVISTA would be required to truck the ash offsite for disposal in a landfill at a
substantial increase in cost relative to the current disposal cost.

Finally, INVISTA evaluated switching to a lower sulfur (0.75 percent) western sub-bituminous coal, and determined that this is both a technologically
feasible and cost effective controltechnology option. The costeffectiveness was calculated to be approximately $1,225 per ton of SO 2 removed. The decrease in SO 2 emissions from the facility’s baseline by switching
to lower sulfur coal was calculated to be approximately 214 tons of SO 2 per year. INVISTA concluded that the cost of switching to a lower sulfur coal would


### 33675 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

13 On April 14, 2011, a landmark CAA settlement was achieved with TVA involving 59 units across the TVA system. Information on the settlement may
be obtained at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/ admpress.nsf/ 2467feca60368729852573590040443d/ 45cbf1a4262af67b8525787200516dd7! OpenDocument. This settlement will assure that
these facilities have controls consistent with Best Available Control Technology. cost more than the $2,000 per ton used by TDEC to determine reasonableness of control costs and therefore, it was a cost prohibitive option. INVISTA based its
conclusion on research that demonstrated that the $1,225 per ton control cost used by TDEC was unjustifiable because it was based on
the current cost of low sulfur coal
instead of the future costs it would be expected to pay. Taking into
consideration INVISTA’s entire analysis, TDEC agreed that although fuel-switching seemed to be a favored option among a number of sources, the future cost of coal switching at the INVISTA facility may be cost prohibitive. For this reason, TDEC is deferring a decision to require INVISTA to use the fuel-switching option during this implementation period.

3. EPA Assessment

As noted in EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state to approach
identification of additional reasonable measures. In determining reasonable progress, states must consider, at a minimum, the four statutory factors, but states have flexibility in how to take
these factors into consideration.

Tennessee applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for identifying appropriate sources to be considered for
additional controls under reasonable progress for the implementation period addressed by this SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology, TDEC
first identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an impact on visibility in the State’s Class
I areas. Units with emissions of SO 2 with a relative contribution to visibility impairment of at least a one percent contribution at any Class I area were then subject to further analysis to
determine whether it would be appropriate to require controls on these units for purposes of reasonable progress. As noted above, of the emission units in Tennessee, two were subject to this analysis. TDEC concluded, based on their evaluation of these two facilities, Bowater and INVISTA, that no further controls were
warranted at this time.

Having reviewed TDEC’s methodology and analyses presented in the SIP materials prepared by TDEC, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee’s conclusion that no further
controls are reasonable for this implementation period for the reviewed sources. EPA agrees with the State’s approach of identifying the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at its Class I areas, and consider their methodology to identify
sources of SO 2 most likely to have an impact on visibility on any Class I area, to be an appropriate methodology for narrowing the scope of the State’s analysis. In general, EPA also finds
Tennessee’s evaluation of the four statutory factors for reasonable progress to be reasonable. Although the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that Tennessee may not have fully considered other available
emissions reduction measures above their threshold, EPA believes that the
Tennessee SIP still ensures reasonable progress. EPA notes that given the emissions reductions resulting from CAIR, Tennessee’s BART determinations, and the measures in nearby states, the visibility improvements projected for the affected
Class I areas are in excess of that needed to be on the uniform rate of progress glidepath. In considering Tennessee’s approach, EPA is also proposing to place great weight on the fact that there
is no indication in the SIP submittal that Tennessee, as a result of using a specific cost effectiveness threshold, rejected potential reasonable progress measures that would have had a meaningful impact on visibility in its Class I areas.

EPA also finds that TDEC’s conclusion regarding the fuel switching option evaluated for INVISTA acceptable. Although the $1,225 per ton
of SO 2 reduced is below the costeffectiveness threshold established by TDEC, a 214 ton per year reduction in

SO 2 is expected to produce limited visibility improvement at the only Class I area that INVISTA impacts (Cohutta Wilderness Class I Area in Georgia) and is therefore an acceptable basis for
deferral of consideration of additional controls to the next assessment period. In addition, EPA finds that Tennessee fully evaluated, in terms of the four reasonable progress factors, all control technologies available at the time of its analysis and applicable to these
facilities. EPA also finds that Tennessee consistently applied its criteria for reasonable compliance costs, and where it differed, the State included justification for the other factors influencing the control determination.

B. Emission Units Exempted From Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control Analysis

1. EGUs Subject to BART and CAIR

Three of the 15 emission units identified for a reasonable progress control analysis are EGUs. These three EGUs are subject to CAIR and were also found to be subject to BART, as
discussed in section V.C.6. These three EGUs, located at two facilities, are Tennessee Valley Authority 13 (TVA) Bull Run Fossil Plant, unit 001, and TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant, units 001
and 002.

To determine whether any additional controls beyond those required by CAIR
would be considered reasonable for
Tennessee’s EGUs for this first implementation period, TDEC evaluated
the SO 2 reductions expected from the EGU sector, factoring in updated information provided by TVA, which owns and operates the EGUs in
Tennessee. The EGUs located in Tennessee are expected to reduce their

2002 SO 2 emissions by approximately 75 percent by 2018. TDEC believes it has an accurate understanding of where
EGU emission reductions will occur in Tennessee based upon existing and planned installations of post
combustion FGD scrubber controls.

To further evaluate whether CAIR requirements will satisfy reasonable progress for SO 2 for EGUs, TDEC considered the four reasonable progress factors set forth in EPA’s RHR as they apply to the State’s entire EGU sector for available control technologies in section
7.6 of the Tennessee SIP. The State also reviewed CAIR requirements that
include 2015 as the ‘‘ earliest reasonable deadline for compliance ’’ for EGUs installing retrofits. See 70 FR 25162, 25197–25198 (May 12, 2005). This is a particularly relevant consideration
because CAIR addresses the reasonable progress factors of cost and time necessary for compliance. In the preamble to CAIR, EPA recognized there
are a number of factors that influence compliance with the emission reduction requirements set forth in CAIR, which make the 2015 compliance date reasonable. For example, each EGU retrofit requires a large pool of specialized labor resources, which exist in limited quantities. In addition,retrofitting an EGU is a very capitalintensive venture and therefore undertaken with caution. Hence, allowing retrofits to be installed over time enables the industry to learn from early installations. Lastly, EGU retrofits over time minimize disruption of the power grid by enabling industry to take advantage of planned outages.


### 33676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

14 EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages

4.2–4–3. 15 Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions ( e.g., the output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF modeling system are available from the model developer on the following Web

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/
download.htm. Since EPA made the determination in
CAIR that the earliest reasonable deadline for compliance for reducing emissions was 2015, TDEC concluded that the emission reductions required by
CAIR constitute reasonable measures for Tennessee EGUs during this first assessment period (between baseline and 2018). In addition, TDEC notes that while the reasonable progress evaluation only applies to existing sources, the State will continue to follow the visibility analysis requirements as part of all new major source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting actions.

Prior to the CAIR remand by the DC Circuit, EPA believed the State’s
demonstration that no additional controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for

SO 2 for affected EGUs for the first implementation period to be acceptable on the basis that the CAIR requirements
reflected the most cost-effective controls
that can be achieved over the CAIR SO 2 compliance timeframe, which spans out to 2015. However, as explained in section IV of this notice, the State’s demonstration regarding CAIR and reasonable progress for EGUs, and other provisions in this SIP revision, are based on CAIR and thus, the Agency proposes today to issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State’s regional haze SIP revision.

2. Non-EGUs Subject to BART

Six of the 15 non-EGU emission units in Tennessee falling within the sulfate
AOI of a Class I area are industrial
facilities that TDEC found to be also subject to BART: Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa)—South Plant, units 09, 16, 17, and Eastman Chemical Company, units 021520, 020101, 261501. TDEC has concluded that, for this implementation period, the application of BART constitutes reasonable progress for these six units and thus, is not requiring any additional controls for reasonable progress. As discussed in EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the RPG, EPA
believes it is reasonable to conclude that any control requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for source review in the first implementation period. 14 Thus, EPA agrees with the
State’s conclusions that the BART control evaluations satisfy reasonable progress for the first implementation period for these six non-EGU emission
units at Alcoa and Eastman Chemical.

3. Other Units Exempted From Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control Analysis

Four other facilities have emission
units that were later determined to be exempt from preparing a reasonable progress control analysis. The emission unit 001 at Intertrade Holdings, Inc. that
was to be considered for evaluation for reasonable progress shut down prior to analysis. In addition, TDEC identified
three emission units that should not
have been included on the list of sources to evaluate because updated information showed they did not meet
Tennessee’s minimum threshold for evaluation for reasonable progress control. A.E. Staley Manufacturing (now Tate & Lyle) Company, unit 005, was already subject to emission limits contained in a construction permit issued March 9, 2007, that reduces SO 2 emissions from unit 005, the power boiler, by approximately 62 percent. APAC–TN, Inc./Harrison Construction Division, unit 002, was erroneously
modeled at almost 10 times its allowable emission rate. Finally, unit 002 (coal-fired boilers) at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Y–12 Plant was repowered to operate on natural gas, virtually eliminating its SO 2 emissions.

6. BART

BART is an element of Tennessee’s LTS for the first implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components, as addressed by TDEC and TDEC’s findings, are discussed as follows.

A. BART-Eligible Sources

The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-eligible
sources within the state’s boundaries. TDEC identified the BART-eligible sources in Tennessee by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) emission unit(s) was constructed on or after August 6, 1962, and was in existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3)potential emissions of any visibilityimpairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year.

The BART Guidelines also direct
states to address SO 2 , NO X and direct PM (including both PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source impair visibility in an area. 70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in Tennessee, as discussed in
section V.C.3. of this action. TDEC has determined, based on the VISTAS modeling, that with one exception (PCS Nitrogen facility near Memphis, Tennessee), ammonia emissions from the State’s point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes.

B. BART-Subject Sources

The second phase of the BARTevaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those sources that are subject to
BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, Tennessee required each of its BART-eligible sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.

1. Modeling Methodology

The BART Guidelines allow states to
use the CALPUFF 15 modeling system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to therefore, determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘ is subject to

BART. ’’ The Guidelines state that EPA believes CALPUFF is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a single source’s


### 33677 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162). Tennessee, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling system to determine whether
individual sources in Tennessee were subject to or exempt from BART.

The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Tennessee, developed

a ‘‘ Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses. ’’ Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in the development and review of the VISTAS protocol.

VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could
consider both the old and new IMPROVE equations. TDEC sent a letterto EPA justifying the need for this postprocessing approach, and the EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator sent the State a letter of approval dated October 5, 2007. Tennessee’s justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation. The State’s description of the new post-processing methodology and the State and Region
4 letters are located in the Tennessee regional haze SIP submittal and the
docket for this action.

2. Contribution Threshold

For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a
contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source is
sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘ A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered to ‘cause’ visibility impairment. ’’ The BART Guidelines also
state that ‘‘the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source ‘contributes to visibility impairment’ may reasonably differ across states, ’’ but,

‘‘ [a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment should not be higher than
0.5 deciviews. ’’ The Guidelines affirm
that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that thelocation of a large number of BARTeligible sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach.

Tennessee used a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciview for determining which sources are subject to BART. EPA agrees with the State’s rationale for choosing this threshold
value. There are a limited number of BART-eligible sources in close proximity to each of the State’s Class I areas, and the overall impact of the BART-eligible sources on visibility near Class I areas is relatively minimal. In addition, the results of the visibility impacts modeling demonstrated that the majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well
below 0.5 deciview.

TDEC demonstrated that there is a clear spatial separation of sources across the State and little risk of multiple source interactions. For example, there
are no clusters of Tennessee BARTeligible sources near the Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer Class I areas. In addition, only two sources, TVA–Bull Run and Alcoa, are located
within 32 kilometers from each other
and the remainder of the State’s BARTeligible sources are over 100 kilometers from one another with respect to these Class I areas. Similarly, with regard to Class I areas in nearby states,
Tennessee’s BART sources are all located greater than 180 kilometers from the Class I areas of Mingo Wilderness (MO), Sipsey Wilderness (AL), and Mammoth Cave (KY).

3. Identification of Sources Subject to

BART

Tennessee initially identified 16 facilities with BART-eligible sources. The State subsequently determined that four sources are exempt from being considered BART-eligible. Liberty Fibers Corporation has permanently shut down, and the BART-eligible boilers located at the facility have been dismantled. Intertrade Holdings, Inc. has permanently shut down the acidplant that was determined to be BARTeligible. Similarly, the power boiler at the Weyerhaeuser facility (formerly Willamette Industries) in Sullivan County has been retired and is no longer BART-eligible. Finally, Holston Army Ammunition Plant requested and was issued an operating permit (February 25, 2008) with a 249 tons per year Federally
enforceable emission limit for NO X for the eight emission units that make up their acid plant which enabled it to exempt these units from consideration as a BART-eligible source. Table 5identifies the remaining 12 BARTeligible sources located in Tennessee, and identifies the four sources subject to

BART.


### 33678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

16 EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. Tennessee relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO 2 and NO X for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO 2 and NO X were not analyzed. 

### TABLE 

### 5—T ENNESSEE 

### BART-E LIGIBLE AND 

### S UBJECT



### - TO 

### -BART S OURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis:
Alcoa—South Plant Eastman Chemical Company—Tennessee Operations E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Old Hickory)
TVA—Cumberland Fossil Plant Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART: EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Sources 16

TVA—Bull Run Fossil Plant Non-EGU BART Modeling E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Shelby County) DuPont White Pigment and Mineral Products (Humphreys County)

Lucite International Owens Corning Packaging Corporation of America PCS Nitrogen
Zinifex

Tennessee found that four of its BART-eligible sources ( i.e., Alcoa— South Plant, Eastman Chemical Company—Tennessee Operations, DuPont—Old Hickory and TVA— Cumberland Fossil Plant) had modeled visibility impacts of more than the 0.5
deciview threshold for BART exemption. These four facilities are considered to be subject to BART and submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART
determinations.

The remaining eight sources demonstrated that they are exempt from being subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at
the affected Class I areas. The two Tennessee EGU sources, TVA— Cumberland and TVA—Bull Run, only
modeled PM 10 emissions because Tennessee relied on CAIR to satisfy
BART for SO 2 and NO X for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). The TVA—Bull Run Fossil
Plant demonstrated that its PM 10 emissions do not contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. Modeling at the TVA—Cumberland Fossil Plant, on the other hand,
demonstrated that its PM 10 emissions
exceeded the 0.5 deciview contribution threshold and thus, required a BART analysis. Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART
for NO X and SO 2 for affected CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as explained in section IV of this notice, the BART assessments for
CAIR EGUs for NO X and SO 2 and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on CAIR, and thus, the Agency proposes today to issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State’s April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP revision.

C. BART Determinations

Four BART-eligible sources ( i.e., Alcoa South Plant, Eastman Chemical Company—Tennessee Operations, DuPont Old Hickory, and TVA— Cumberland Fossil Plant) had modeled visibility impacts of more than the 0.5
deciview threshold for BART exemption. These four facilities are therefore considered to be subject to BART. Consequently, they each submitted to the State permit applications that included their proposed BART determinations.

In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed existing
controls on these units to assess
whether these constituted the best controls currently available, then identified what other technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. The State’s evaluations and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment,
are summarized below.

1. Alcoa

a. Background

The Alcoa facility, located in Alcoa, Tennessee, is a BART-eligible source containing 24 BART-eligible emission
units. Potlines 1 and 2 emit SO 2 and PM, and the anode bake furnace emits

SO 2 , NO X , and PM. Two of the remaining 21 material-handling transfer operations are negligible sources of VOC and the remaining 19 emit PM only. Each pollutant and its effect on the visibility on Class I areas was analyzed by the State. Although eventually considered when taken together, for ease of reference, the analysis of existing controls for each pollutant is set forth
below.

b. Potlines 1 and 2, and Anode Bake

Furnace

(1) PM BART Review. Potlines 1 and
2 and the anode bake furnace are already equipped with a sophisticated
fluidized reactor emission control system followed by fabric filters for PM
control. Tennessee determined that
these controls are BART for PM forthese units. Given that this highefficiency control system is superior or equal to other feasible control options, no further analysis of PM controls for these three units was performed, as allowed by the BART Guidelines in
cases where the best level of control is already in place.

(2) SO 2 BART Review. For potline SO 2 emissions, TDEC evaluated eight
different SO 2 control options as having potential application as part of the BART analysis. Of the eight control options, TDEC identified two technically feasible options for controlling SO 2 emissions from the potlines and anode bake furnace: adding a wet scrubber to the potline and/or anode bake furnace exhausts, and limiting the sulfur content in the coke used to produce anodes to three percent.
Tennessee determined BART for SO 2 for Potlines 1 and 2, and the anode bake furnace, to be a limit of three percent
sulfur in the coke used to manufacture anodes. This limit will cap potline SO 2 emissions below current allowable emissions. Use of wet scrubbing technology to reduce potline SO 2 emissions was rejected as BART due to
excessive costs. The estimated total cost-effectiveness of wet scrubbing was $7,500 per ton of SO 2 removed, and capital and total annualized costs were estimated to be $200,000,000 and $39,000,000 per year, respectively. The potlines were not identified as being a
source of NO X.


### 33679 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(3) NO X BART Review. The potlines were not identified as being a source of

NO X, however, the company did identify the anode bake furnace as a
source of NO X . The company also identified two potentially applicable

NO X emission controls for the anode bake furnace: Advanced firing systems
and add-on controls. TDEC determined
that add-on controls were not feasible because of the low temperature (less
than 450 ° F) and presence of tar vapor.
Add-on controls for NO X typically require elevated temperatures (in excess
of 850 ° F) and tar vapor would foul a catalyst. Advanced firing systems,
which reduce NO X formation by using less natural gas to operate, were found to be technically feasible for anode baking and were evaluated further as part of the BART determination analysis.

TDEC determined that NO X emissions
from the anode bake furnace could be reduced by installing an advanced firing system, which not only reduces total gas usage (by 20 percent), but also reduces

NO X emissions by 20 percent, or approximately 17 tons per year. While the advanced firing system for the anode bake furnace is cost neutral (meaning the savings in reduced natural gas consumption would offset the cost of the installation of the system), the visibility impact analysis predicts only a 0.001 deciview improvement in visibility at the nearest Class I area from use of this technology. Based on the negligible change in visibility resulting
from the installation of an advanced firing system, Tennessee concluded that this technology does not represent
BART for NO X for the Alcoa anode bake
furnace. Tennessee also determined that
the available controls are not reasonable
and that it was reasonable to find that BART for the anode baking furnace at the Alcoa facility located in Alcoa,
Tennessee was no control for NO X emissions.

c. Support Operations

The remaining 21 BART-eligible
emission units at Alcoa are material handling and transfer operations that support the potlines and the anode bake furnace. Two of these support operations are negligible sources of
VOC. TDEC has determined that controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little, if any, visibility benefits at the Class I areas in or nearby Tennessee, and, thus, as noted in section V.C.1 of this action,
Tennessee did not further evaluate VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or reasonable progress.

PM BART Review. Emissions from the remaining 19 support operations consist of relatively small amounts of PM that are controlled by fabric filter control devices. Fabric filters effectively remove greater than 99 percent of particulate
emissions. Based on a control technology review, this type of control represents the best available control for the material handling and transfer operations at the Alcoa facility. Given that fabric filters represent the best available control for PM, and the relatively low level of PM emissions,
these emission sources were excluded from both visibility modeling and further BART engineering analysis, as allowed by the BART Guidelines in
cases where the best level of control is already in place (70 FR 39163–39164). Additionally, based on modeling results provided by Alcoa, visibility impacts
from individual fabric filters are projected to be less than or equal to 0.01 deciview. Therefore, Tennessee
determined that BART for PM for these 19 support operations is the existing
level of control.

d. EPA Assessment

EPA agrees with Tennessee’s analyses
and conclusions for the BART emission units located at this Alcoa facility. EPA has reviewed the Tennessee analyses and concluded they were conducted in
a manner that is consistent with EPA’s
BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual ( http:// www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/ products.html#cccinfo )

. Therefore the
conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA’s guidance to this

source.

2. Eastman Chemical

a. Background

The Eastman Chemical facility located in Kingsport, Tennessee ( ‘‘ Kingsport plant’’ ) is a BART-eligible source with nine emission units including: Five tangentially fired 655 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBtu/hr), pulverized coal boilers (boilers 25–29), two cracking furnaces, a batch chemical manufacturing operation, and a 500 MMBtu/hr stoker boiler (boiler 24).

b. Boilers 25–29

Boilers 25–29 are used for coproduction of steam and electricity in support of manufacturing operations at the Kingsport plant.

(1) SO 2 BART Review. The average

SO 2 emission rate for calendar year 2005 was 1.4 pounds of SO 2 per MMBtu of heat input (lb SO 2 /MMBtu). TDEC identified four technically feasible technologies for control of SO 2 emissions from boilers 25–29: (1) Spray dryer absorbers with fabric filters (SDA– FF); (2) sodium hydroxide (caustic) scrubbers; (3) wet-FGD ( i.e., limestone scrubbing with forced oxidation); and (4) dual alkali systems. TDEC concluded
that it would be reasonable to install
SDA–FF on boilers 25–29. To meet an
emission rate of 0.2 lb/MMBtu or 92 percent SO 2 control using the current regionally available coal supply,
Eastman Chemical will also need to convert the existing electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to fabric filters. TDEC
established as BART for SO 2 from Boilers 25–29 as the less stringent of the following limits: 0.20 lb SO 2 /MMBtu, or
a reduction in uncontrolled SO 2 emissions by 92 percent. TDEC also recognized in its SIP that the SO 2 emission limits for BART will require
the installation of additional PM controls, which will further reduce PM, but since the facility is already well controlled for PM, the State did not adopt as BART any additional PM limits for these boilers. Installing SDA–FF on Boilers 25–29 will reduce the three-year average of the maximum 98th percentile impact on visibility, as modeled, from
2.38 deciviews to 0.95 deciviews.

(2) PM and NO X BART Review. In the early 1990s, an ESP was installed on
each unit to control PM emissions. As discussed in the previous subsection V.C.6.C, 2.b.(1), SO 2 BART review, additional PM controls must be
installed on Boilers 25–29 to meet the

new BART SO 2 limits. During 2001– 2003, the burners on these boilers were retrofitted with a vaned close coupled overfire-air system to control NO X emissions. At lower loads, the boiler’s mode of operation is equivalent to a

NO X control strategy known as Burner Out of Service, and results in significantly lower NO X emissions.

For NO X , TDEC concluded that whilethe available technologies (running lowNO X burners year-round and application of Separated Over-Fire Air(SOFA)) might be considered costeffective on a dollars per ton basis, there are other environmental factors that, when weighed against the visibility benefits, led the State to conclude that existing seasonal NO X controls would be considered BART. The impact of reducing the NO X would be to reduce the three-year average of the maximum 98th percentile impact on visibility, as modeled for this source, from 0.95
deciviews to 0.76 deciviews.

The environmental factors include: (a) disposal of fly ash rather than sales to the concrete industry would increase use of aggregate by the cement manufacturing industry and increase waste being sent to landfills, and (b) an
increase in emissions associated with burning coal ( i.e., SO 2 and PM) due to an increase in fuel use caused by a loss


### 33680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

of boiler efficiency due to higher amounts of unburned carbon in the fly ash. The efficiency loss is projected to be around 0.5 percent, which is equivalent to about an extra 3,500 tons of coal that must be burned each year to generate the same output.

c. Cracking Furnaces

The two cracking furnaces are used to fire natural gas to provide heat to drive a cracking reaction of acetic acid that
occurs inside the tube assemblies of the
furnaces. The furnaces also burn a fuel gas which is off-gassed from the manufacturing process. SO 2 and PM
emissions from these units are negligible.

The NO X emissions potential from these small furnaces is low (10.5 tonsper year each). Therefore, postcombustion technologies such as selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or selective catalytic reduction (SCR) would not be cost-effective. Although
several different combustion control technologies were considered, only the replacement of the 24 natural gas
burners with new low NO X burners(LNB) was considered to be costeffective. However, because NO X emissions are already low using the current technology, the impact on visibility from the LNB would be very limited. Additionally, replacing the existing burners with LNB would change the natural gas flame profile,
which would have unknown effects on the heat profile. Changing the heat profile could adversely affect the ability of the cracking furnaces to provide for the cracking reaction to take place and to continue to provide for 98 percent reduction of the total organic carbon in the fuel gas. The cracking furnaces also
serve as control devices for the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR 60 Subpart NNN.
CALPUFF model runs show that the visibility impairment caused by these emission units for the 98th percentile daily maximum impact is 0.01 deciviews at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. For these reasons, TDEC
concluded that there are no NO X control technologies that are both technically feasible and reasonably cost-effective to reduce visibility in Class I Areas for
these furnaces.

d. Batch Chemical Manufacturing

The batch chemical manufacturing operation has an operating permit to

emit NO X , SO 2 , ammonia and PM. The operation is a compilation of specialty organic chemical batch manufacturing equipment located in five different buildings. Each of these pieces of equipment is controlled by fabric filters, water scrubbers, or caustic scrubbers.

SO 2 is controlled by caustic scrubbers,
which are estimated to achieve 98 percent control. PM is controlled to a minimum efficiency of 95 percent. NO X has not been emitted by this unit in several years. However, if products were
to be manufactured that emitted NO X , they would be controlled by caustic
scrubbers and the annual emissions
would be limited to 14 tons. Ammonia emissions are controlled by water
scrubbers which achieve control efficiencies from 20–60 percent and are
limited to annual emissions of 22.4 tons. Given these high control efficiencies
and the low total annual emissions allowed, TDEC concluded further
control of SO 2 , NO X , ammonia, and PM
would not be reasonable for the batch chemical manufacturing operation.

e. Boiler 24

Boiler 24 burns bituminous coal along with wastewater treatment biosludge and liquid chemical wastes. This unit is used for co-production of steam and electricity in support of manufacturing operations at the Kingsport plant as well as the destruction of biosludge from Eastman’s wastewater treatment facility
and waste chemicals.

Boiler 24 is equipped with an ESP for PM, and an overfire air system is built into the stoker design for NO X emission control. Additionally, because this boiler routinely burns a wastewater treatment biosludge that is about 85 percent water, the injection of this material cools the flame temperature
and reduces NO X by approximately 20 percent. No additional NO X control technology was considered technically feasible. The most cost-effective option
for control of SO 2 that is technically
feasible has a cost-effectiveness of about $3,000–$4,000 per ton.

Eastman Chemical evaluated several

SO 2 scrubbing options for boiler 24. Boiler 24 is in a different building than boilers 25–29. Therefore, there is no economy of scale with the lime handling system or caustic storage system. Also, there is little available space adjacent to Boiler 24. The
absorber would have to be either elevated above the adjacent rail yard or located some distance away with ductwork spanning railroad tracks or a roadway. Similarly, to accommodate a new fabric filter, Eastman Chemical’s options include retrofitting the ESP to a fabric filter, or demolishing the existing ESP and building a baghouse in itsplace. As a result, the most costeffective option for control of SO 2 thatis technically feasible has a costeffectiveness of about $3,000-$4,000 per ton, and would reduce the three-year average of the maximum 98th percentile impact on visibility by approximately
0.1 deciview. TDEC concluded that no additional control of PM, NO X or SO 2 for BART should be required for Boiler

24.

f. EPA Assessment

EPA reviewed the TDEC BART
determinations summarized above and agrees with Tennessee’s analyses and
conclusions for BART for Eastman Chemical, because the analyses were
conducted consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines and EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, and reflect a reasonable application of EPA’s guidance to this source.

3. TVA Cumberland

a. Background

The TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant has two pulverized-coal-fired steamgenerators that are considered BARTeligible. Units 1 and 2 are nominally rated at about 1,325 megawatts each.

b. BART Assessment

EGU Units 1 and 2 are both equipped
with FGD for SO 2 control, SCR systems for controlling NO X , and ESPs to control PM emissions. In addition, TVA Cumberland currently uses hydrated lime injection on both units to mitigate stack opacity.

(1) SO 2 and NO X BART Review. The
two emission units at TVA Cumberland are also subject to the EPA CAIR. TVA Cumberland has already installed
scrubbers and NO X controls on the emission units at this facility. As discussed in section V.C., Tennessee has opted to rely on CAIR to satisfy BART
for SO 2 and NO X for its EGUs subject to CAIR, as allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, TVA Cumberland submitted a BART exemption modeling demonstration for PM emissions only.

(2) PM BART Review. TDEC prepared an engineering analysis to determine whether there is a technically and economically feasible control scenario that represents BART for PM. The modeling analysis demonstrated that approximately 96 percent of the visibility impacts at the affected Class I
areas can be attributed to condensable

PM 10 emissions ( i.e., sulfites (SO 3 )). Thus, the engineering evaluation for
TVA Cumberland focuses on control of

SO 3 /sulfuric acid (H 2 SO 4 ) emissions. The only option identified as technically feasible for controlling PM
was to reduce additional SO 3 emissions at the Cumberland facility with a wet ESP. While application of a wet ESP would reduce visibility impacts, TDEC determined that not only would the


### 33681 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

costs associated with retrofitting the facility with a wet ESP be high, but that the ESP would also require large volumes of water to operate it. TDEC estimated that the total capital investment required to install a wet ESP at this facility is approximately $176 million per emission unit, with total annual costs of approximately $50.5 million per year, and a corresponding cost-effectiveness of over $85,000 per

ton of PM removed.

TDEC determined that for the TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant, no additional controls for PM will be required. Since the facility is currently well controlled

for SO 2 and PM, additional control was removed from consideration during this implementation period based on cost and environmental impacts. Consistent with this determination, TDEC has adopted into the SIP and as a title V permit condition a limit of 0.5 lbs SO 2 per MMBtu of heat input which can be met with existing controls.

c. EPA Assessment

EPA agrees with Tennessee’s analyses

and conclusions for BART for the TVA Cumberland facility for PM. EPA notes that while TVA Cumberland presently operates a sorbent injection system on

each unit to reduce SO 3 /H 2 SO 4 emissions to seven parts per million by volume, recent advances in this technology can also allow this technology to achieve emission rates comparable to those of a wet ESP at much lower cost. EPA expects Tennessee will evaluate this improved technology further in the next implementation period as part of its reasonable progress assessment. EPA concludes that the analyses conducted

for the PM emissions are consistent with

EPA’s BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, and the

conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA’s guidance to this

source.

Prior to the CAIR remand by the, EPA

believed the State’s demonstration that

CAIR satisfies BART for SO 2 and NO X for affected EGUs for the first implementation period to be approvable
and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as explained in section IV of this notice, the State’s demonstration regarding CAIR and BART for EGUs, and other provisions in this SIP revision, are based on CAIR and thus, the Agency proposes today to issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State’s regional haze

SIP revision. 4. DuPont-Old Hickory Plant

a. Background

The DuPont-Old Hickory Plant operates two BART-eligible units,
boilers 20 and 24. Boiler 20 is a tangentially-fired coal unit with a rated capacity of 445 MMBtu/hr. Boiler 24 is a tangentially fired coal unit with a rated capacity of 315 MMBtu/hr. Boiler 24 is presently operated only during periods of peak demand, which typically occur in the winter, when boiler 20 has insufficient capacity to meet both the process and space heating demands of the facility.

b. BART Assessment

TDEC evaluated nine control strategies for reducing SO 2 and seven strategies for reducing NO X emissions. Based on boiler operating data supplied by DuPont Old Hickory, TDEC
concluded that none of the control strategies were appropriate because the strategies did not address the different ways the boilers were operated during the year, depending upon the season. The strategies all overstated the actual impacts of the facility on regional haze. Therefore, instead of requiring the installation of control technology on the boilers, TDEC adopted seasonal operating limits in the DuPont operating permit. These limits constrain the ability of both boilers to operate at the same time, with more stringent limits in the summer when visibility impacts are the greatest. With these new limits, the facility’s impacts on visibility near the
Mammoth Cave Class I area are less than
0.5 deciview.

The emission limits adopted by TDEC, and incorporated into DuPont’s title V operating permit, reduce the
combined allowable SO 2 emissions from the boilers 20 and 24 by 20,834 lbs per day (lbs/d) in the summer (May through September) to 32,256 lbs/d and by 14,522 lbs/d in the winter (October through April) to 38,568 lbs/d. Therefore, the facility is reducing
allowable NO X emissions from these units by 3,978 lbs/d in the summer to 6,120 lbs/d and by 3,330 lbs/d in the winter to 6,768 lbs/d. CALPUFF modeling based on these operating rates results in a reduction in visibility impact due to the facility’s contribution
which falls below the 0.5 deciview threshold TDEC applied for determining whether BART-eligible sources are subject to BART.

c. EPA Assessment

EPA agrees with Tennessee’s analyses
and conclusions for BART for the DuPont-Old Hickory Plant because the analyses were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA’s BART
Guidelines and EPA’s Air Pollution
Control Cost Manual. In addition, the
conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA’s guidance to this

source. 5. Enforceability of Limits

The BART determinations for each of
the facilities discussed above and the resulting BART emission limits were adopted by Tennessee into the State’s regional haze SIP. TDEC incorporated
the BART emission limits into state operating permits, and submitted these permits as part the State’s regional haze
SIP. The BART limits will also be added to the facilities’ title V permits according to the procedures established in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. The BART limits adopted in the SIP are as follows: (a) for Alcoa, a limitation of three percent sulfur in the petroleum coke used in the facility’s electrode production operations; (b) for Eastman Chemical, a condition requiring compliance with more stringent SO 2 limitation on its boilers ( i.e., boilers 25– 29 shall comply with the less stringent of the following emission limits: 0.20 lb

SO 2 /MMBtu of heat input or reduce
uncontrolled SO 2 emissions by 92 percent); (c) for TVA-Cumberland Fossil Plant, emission limits consistent with existing controls ( i.e., 0.5 lb SO 2 /MMBtu of heat input) are denoted as BART with no additional control measures; and (d) for DuPont-Old Hickory, a limit on the total combined daily emissions for boilers 20 and 24, based upon seasonal operating limits that reduce allowable

SO 2 emissions from the affected units to 32,256 lbs/d in the summer and to 38,568 lbs/d in the winter, and
allowable NO X emissions from these units to 6,120 lbs/d in the summer and to 6,768 lbs/d in the winter.

Tennessee is requiring Eastman Chemical, DuPont-Old Hickory and Alcoa to comply with these BART
emission limits as follows: ‘‘ No later than five (5) years after publication in the Federal Register of U.S. EPA’s approval of Tennessee’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan revision

*** ’’ to allow time for needed operational changes. The emission
limits for TVA-Cumberland are consistent with existing controls and thus, are immediately effective. (For further details of the specific BART requirements, see also EPA’s TSD to this action, section III.D.4, or section 7.5.2 of the Tennessee SIP Narrative.)

7. RPGs

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs for
each Class I area within the state


### 33682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

17 Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions

within the state to address some or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop their regional haze SIP submittals. (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state regulations for the period 2004–2018, and additional

control measures which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the Tennessee Class I areas had not yet made final
control determinations for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these

controls were not included in the modeling submitted by Tennessee. Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give
further assurances that Tennessee will achieve its RPGs. This modeling
demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for both of the Tennessee Class I areas for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.

As shown in Table 6 below, Tennessee’s RPGs for the 20 percent worst days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the uniform rate of progress for the State’s Class I areas ( i.e., 25.79 deciviews in 2018). Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day conditions. The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional haze provisions specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from other CAA requirements during the implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, like Tennessee, took into account emission reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs. 17



### TABLE 

### 6—T ENNESSEE 

### 2018 RPG S

[In deciviews]

Class I area Baseline visibility—20

percent worst days 2018 RPG— 20 percent worst days (improvement from baseline) Uniform rate of progress
at 2018—20

percent worst days Baseline visibility—20 percent best days 2018 RPG— 20 percentbest days (improvement from baseline)

Great Smoky Mountains National Park ........................................... 30.28 23.50 (6.78) 25.79 13.58 12.11 (1.47) Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ......................................... 30.28 23.50 (6.78) 25.79 13.58 12.11 (1.47)

The RPGs for the Class I areas in
Tennessee are based on modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the best available information at the time the analysis was done. These projections can be expected to change as additional information regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to comply with new rules. Itwould be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to continually adjust the RPG every time an event affecting these future projections changed.

EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions, and
addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. EPA made
clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory goal. See 64 FR at 35733. At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if necessary, correction of the states’ regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this progress
review is to assess the effectiveness of emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and to provide an
assessment of whether current implementation strategies are sufficient
for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate

action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the state’s conclusion that the current strategies are
insufficient to meet the RPGs. Tennessee specifically committed to follow this process in the long-term strategy portion of its submittal.

EPA anticipates that the Transport
Rule will result in similar or better improvements in visibility than predicted from CAIR. Because the Transport Rule is not final, however,
EPA does not know at this time how it will affect any individual Class I area and cannot accurately model future conditions based on its implementation. By the time Tennessee is required to undertake its five year progress review, however, it is likely that the impact of the Transport Rule and other measures can be meaningfully assessed. If, in particular Class I areas, the Transport Rule does not provide similar or greater benefits than CAIR and meeting the
RPGs at one of its Class I Federal areas is in jeopardy, the State will be required
to address this circumstance in its five year review. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve Tennessee’s RPGs for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness Area.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

EPA’s visibility regulations direct
states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as explained in sections
III.F and III.G. of this action. Under EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral

vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a

‘‘view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory
Class I Federal area. ’’ Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral vista associated with that


### 33683 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

18 Tennessee submitted its visibility SIP revisions addressing RAVI on February 9, 1993, and December 19, 1994, which EPA approved on July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35681). Tennessee also submitted a SIP revision addressing PSD/NSR visibility provisions on January 17, 1995, that EPA approved on July 18, 1996 (61 FR 37387). area. The FLMs did not identify any integral vistas in Tennessee. In addition,
neither Class I area in Tennessee is experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the April 4, 2008, Tennessee regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. However, Tennessee previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment from an
individual source. 18 EPA finds that this regional haze submittal appropriately supplements and augments Tennessee’s RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as
summarized below in this section.

In the April 4, 2008, submittal, TDEC updated its visibility monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also in this submittal, TDEC affirmed its commitment to complete items required
in the future under EPA’s RHR. Specifically, TDEC made a commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, TDEC made a commitment to submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located within Tennessee, and in each mandatory Class I area located outside Tennessee which may be affected by emissions from within Tennessee. The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP revision and is due every five years following the initial submittal of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA’s monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional haze, Tennessee will rely
on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be needed in
the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the Tennessee NSR rules, previously approved in the State’s SIP, continue to provide a framework
for review and coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse impact on visibility in either form ( i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class I Federal area. The Tennessee SIP contains a plan addressing the associated monitoring and reporting requirements. See 62 FR 35681 (July 2, 1997); 40 CFR 52.2239(c)(147). Although EPA’s approvals of these rules neglected to remove the Federally promulgated provisions set forth in 40 CFR 52.2234, EPA corrected this omission in a separate rulemaking on April 21, 2010 (75 FR 20783).

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Tennessee is the
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section V.B.2. of this notice, 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, both of which lie partly in Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.

IMPROVE monitoring data from
2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the April 4, 2008, regional haze submittal. In the submittal, Tennessee states its intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA’s RHR for the current and future regional haze implementation periods.

Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to provide ready
access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. Tennessee is encouraging
VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain
the VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.

In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, there is long-term limited monitoring by FLMs which provides additional insight into progress toward regional haze goals. Such
measurements include:

• Web cameras operated by the National Park Service at Look Rock, Tennessee at the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park

• An integrating nephelometer for continuously measuring light scattering, operated by the National Park Service at Look Rock, Tennessee

• A Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance for continuously measuring PM 2.5 mass concentration, operated by the National Park Service at Look Rock, Tennessee.

In addition, Tennessee and the local air agencies in the State operate a comprehensive PM 2.5 network of filterbased Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter based speciated monitors and the continuous speciated monitors.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States

In December 2006 and in May 2007,
the State Air Directors from the VISTAS
states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide additional
feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses showing contributions to visibility impairment
from states to each of the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.

TDEC has evaluated the impact of
Tennessee sources on Class I areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because many of these states had not yet defined their criteria for identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, Tennessee applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the State that have emission units with impacts large enough to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. The State
identified 13 emission units in
Tennessee with a contribution of one percent or more to the visibility impairment at the following four Class I areas in three neighboring states: Cohutta Wilderness area, Georgia; Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky; and Linville Gorge and Shining Rock Wilderness areas, North
Carolina. Based on an evaluation of the four reasonable progress statutory factors, Tennessee determined that there
are no additional control measures for
these Tennessee emission units that would be reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas in these neighboring states. TDEC
has consulted with these states regarding its reasonable progress control evaluations showing no cost-effective
controls available for those emission units in Tennessee contributing at least one percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas in the states. Additionally,
TDEC sent letters to the other states in the VISTAS region documenting its


### 33684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

19 These five TVA EGUs have been addressed by the April 14, 2011, CAA settlement discussed in

V.C.5.B.1. analysis using the State’s AOI methodology that no SO 2 emission units
in Tennessee contribute at least one percent to the visibility impairment at
the Class I areas in those states. No
adverse comments were received from
the other VISTAS states. The
documentation for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J
of Tennessee’s SIP.

Regarding the impact of sources
outside of the State on Class I areas in Tennessee, TDEC sent letters to Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia pertaining to emission units
within these states that the State believes contributed one percent or higher to visibility impairment in the Tennessee Class I areas. At that time, these neighboring states were still in the process of evaluating BART and reasonable progress for their sources. Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which gives
further assurances that Tennessee will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative, Tennessee opted not to rely on any additional emission
reductions from sources located outside the State’s boundaries beyond those already identified in the State’s regional
haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section V.C.1. (Federal and state controls in place by 2018) of this action.

Tennessee received letters from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) RPO States of Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont in the spring of 2007, stating that based on MANE–VU’s analysis of 2002 emissions data, Tennessee contributed to visibility impairment to Class I areas in those
states. The MANE–VU states identified
five TVA EGU stacks 19 in Tennessee that they would like to see controlled to 90 percent efficiency. They also requested a control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in SO 2 emissions
from sources other than EGUs that would be equivalent to MANE–VU’s proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Working with Tennessee, TVA has controlled or is expecting to control three of the EGUs, (Kingston 1 & 2 and John Sevier), by the end of 2011. The remaining two EGUs, (Gallatin and Johnsonville), have been discussed with
TVA. TVA has indicated that it will either repower or shut down the Johnsonville facility by the next implementation period in 2018 and will ultimately control Gallatin if needed to meet its CAIR obligations or more stringent controls to meet increasingly stringent NAAQS. TDEC evaluated both
EGU and non-EGU sources to determine
what controls are reasonable in this first implementation period. TDEC believes that these emissions reductions satisfy MANE–VU’s request.

EPA finds that Tennessee has adequately addressed the consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its
consultation with other states in its SIP
submittal.

2. Consultation With the FLMs

Through the VISTAS RPO, Tennessee
and the nine other member states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the regional haze
SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze plan for Tennessee was out for public comment
and FLM discussions in the November to December 2007 period. Tennessee subsequently modified the plan to
address comments received on this
initial version and reissued it for a second round of public participation in the February to March 2008 period. The FLMs submitted no significant adverse comments regarding the State’s regional haze SIP. The FLMs requested that Tennessee add more details to support the State’s conclusions. Additionally, some of the FLM staff had difficulty in navigating through the compact disc of electronic support materials. Improvements were made to improve navigability. To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), TDEC made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout implementation of its plan, including annual discussions. TDEC
also affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources subject to the State’s NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

As also summarized in section V.D. of this action, consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(g), TDEC affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following this
initial submittal of the Tennessee regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area
located within Tennessee and in each mandatory Class I area located outside Tennessee which may be affected by
emissions from within Tennessee.
Tennessee also offered
recommendations for several technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State’s next LTS. These
recommendations are discussed in
detail in the Tennessee submittal in Appendix K.

If another state’s regional haze SIP
identifies that Tennessee’s SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate consultation Tennessee agrees, today’s action may be revisited, or additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the fiveyear progress report SIP revision.

VI. What action is EPA proposing to
take?

EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by the State of Tennessee on April 4, 2008, 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, as described previously in this action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘ Regulatory Planning and

Review. ’’

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all ‘‘ collections of information ’’ by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘ collection of
information ’’ as a requirement for answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new


### 33685 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules

requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( ‘‘ Unfunded Mandates Act’’ ), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that today’s proposal does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. ThisFederal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘ meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications ’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘ substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. ’’ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘ Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments ’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘ meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. ’’ This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ‘‘ economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘ Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards ’’ (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: May 31, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 2011–14292 Filed 6–8–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**