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, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33663 

1EPA’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 (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

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 NOX

and SO2 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 

3Areas 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.’’ 

4Albuquerque/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 (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) 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. 

PM2.5 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 the 

regional 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33665 

5The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

6The 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 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 

SO2 and NOX. 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33667 

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 SO2

and NOX 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 SO2 and 

NOX 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, including 

participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2,

NOX -annual, and NOX -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 SO2 and NOX 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7The 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. 

8The 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 Smoky 

Mountains 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33669 

9The 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 Mountains 

National 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—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE TENNESSEE CLASS I AREAS

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, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

10See 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 this 

action, 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 SO2

and NOX 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 NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 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 NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into 

Tennessee’s regional haze analyses, 

Tennessee did not further evaluate NH3

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 NOX

SIP Call; North Carolina’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act; Georgia multipollutant rule; consent decrees for 

Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and 

Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant 

Crist, and American Electric Power; 

NOX and/or VOC reductions from the 

control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for 

Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern 

Kentucky; North Carolina’s NOX

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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33671 

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 SO2, PM2.5, 

and coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.5 to 1.5 

percent, depending on the pollutant, of 

the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10

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 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 85,254 221,651 39,973 49,814 1,817 413,755 

Area .................................................................................. 153,509 17,936 42,925 212,972 34,412 29,942 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 179,807 238,577 3,949 5,371 6,625 9,226 

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 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ................................................................................. 93,432 94,234 46,680 57,940 2,454 169,354

Area .................................................................................. 183,110 20,002 48,265 248,086 36,376 32,073 

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, PM2.5, 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’’). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 PM2.5 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 PM2.5 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 NOX and NH3 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33673 

11Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and 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. 

12See 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

emission reductions from non-utility 

industrial point sources. SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2

emissions to be appropriate. 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2

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 SO2 AOI methodology 

captured greater than 60 percent of the 

total point source SO2 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 SO2 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the State’s minimum threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation. 

TABLE 4—TENNESSEE FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

wet scrubbers, which is technically 

feasible, but the estimated costeffectiveness exceeds $5,000 per ton of 

SO2 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. SO2 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 SO2 emissions from the 

boilers used by INVISTA, but cost 

prohibitive. Cost-effectiveness was 

calculated to be approximately $3,508 

per ton of SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 control 

technology option. The costeffectiveness was calculated to be 

approximately $1,225 per ton of SO2

removed. The decrease in SO2 emissions 

from the facility’s baseline by switching 

to lower sulfur coal was calculated to be 

approximately 214 tons of SO2 per year. 

INVISTA concluded that the cost of 

switching to a lower sulfur coal would 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33675 

13On 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 SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2 reduced is below the costeffectiveness threshold established by 

TDEC, a 214 ton per year reduction in 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

14EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 

4.2–4–3. 

15Note 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 

SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2, NOX and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

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 BART 

evaluation 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33677 

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 letter 

to 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 the 

location 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 acid 

plant 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 NOX 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 5 

identifies the remaining 12 BARTeligible sources located in Tennessee, 

and identifies the four sources subject to 

BART. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

16EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

Tennessee relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2

and NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not 

analyzed. 

TABLE 5—TENNESSEE BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

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 PM10 emissions because 

Tennessee relied on CAIR to satisfy 

BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in 

CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). The TVA—Bull Run Fossil 

Plant demonstrated that its PM10

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 PM10 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 NOX and SO2 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 NOX and SO2 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 SO2 and 

PM, and the anode bake furnace emits 

SO2, NOX, 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 for 

these 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) SO2 BART Review. For potline SO2

emissions, TDEC evaluated eight 

different SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

emissions below current allowable 

emissions. Use of wet scrubbing 

technology to reduce potline SO2

emissions was rejected as BART due to 

excessive costs. The estimated total 

cost-effectiveness of wet scrubbing was 

$7,500 per ton of SO2 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 NOX.


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33679 

(3) NOX BART Review. The potlines 

were not identified as being a source of 

NOX, however, the company did 

identify the anode bake furnace as a 

source of NOX. The company also 

identified two potentially applicable 

NOX 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 NOX typically 

require elevated temperatures (in excess 

of 850° F) and tar vapor would foul a 

catalyst. Advanced firing systems, 

which reduce NOX 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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX

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) SO2 BART Review. The average 

SO2 emission rate for calendar year 2005 

was 1.4 pounds of SO2 per MMBtu of 

heat input (lb SO2/MMBtu). TDEC 

identified four technically feasible 

technologies for control of SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2 from 

Boilers 25–29 as the less stringent of the 

following limits: 0.20 lb SO2/MMBtu, or 

a reduction in uncontrolled SO2

emissions by 92 percent. TDEC also 

recognized in its SIP that the SO2

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 NOX 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), SO2 BART review, 

additional PM controls must be 

installed on Boilers 25–29 to meet the 

new BART SO2 limits. During 2001– 

2003, the burners on these boilers were 

retrofitted with a vaned close coupled 

overfire-air system to control NOX

emissions. At lower loads, the boiler’s 

mode of operation is equivalent to a 

NOX control strategy known as Burner 

Out of Service, and results in 

significantly lower NOX emissions. 

For NOX, TDEC concluded that while 

the available technologies (running lowNOX 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 NOX controls would 

be considered BART. The impact of 

reducing the NOX 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., SO2 and PM) due to 

an increase in fuel use caused by a loss 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. SO2 and PM 

emissions from these units are 

negligible. 

The NOX emissions potential from 

these small furnaces is low (10.5 tons 

per 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 NOX burners 

(LNB) was considered to be costeffective. However, because NOX

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 NOX 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 NOX, SO2, 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. 

SO2 is controlled by caustic scrubbers, 

which are estimated to achieve 98 

percent control. PM is controlled to a 

minimum efficiency of 95 percent. NOX

has not been emitted by this unit in 

several years. However, if products were 

to be manufactured that emitted NOX, 

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 SO2, NOX, 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 NOX 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 NOX by approximately 20 

percent. No additional NOX control 

technology was considered technically 

feasible. The most cost-effective option 

for control of SO2 that is technically 

feasible has a cost-effectiveness of about 

$3,000–$4,000 per ton. 

Eastman Chemical evaluated several 

SO2 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 its 

place. As a result, the most costeffective option for control of SO2 that 

is 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, NOX or SO2

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 steam 

generators 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 SO2 control, SCR systems 

for controlling NOX, and ESPs to control 

PM emissions. In addition, TVA 

Cumberland currently uses hydrated 

lime injection on both units to mitigate 

stack opacity. 

(1) SO2 and NOX BART Review. The 

two emission units at TVA Cumberland 

are also subject to the EPA CAIR. TVA 

Cumberland has already installed 

scrubbers and NOX 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 SO2 and NOX 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 

PM10 emissions (i.e., sulfites (SO3)). 

Thus, the engineering evaluation for 

TVA Cumberland focuses on control of 

SO3/sulfuric acid (H2SO4) emissions. 

The only option identified as 

technically feasible for controlling PM 

was to reduce additional SO3 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33681 

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 SO2 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 SO2

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 SO3/H2SO4

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 SO2 and NOX

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 SO2 and seven 

strategies for reducing NOX 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 SO2 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 NOX 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 SO2

limitation on its boilers (i.e., boilers 25– 

29 shall comply with the less stringent 

of the following emission limits: 0.20 lb 

SO2/MMBtu of heat input or reduce 

uncontrolled SO2 emissions by 92 

percent); (c) for TVA-Cumberland Fossil 

Plant, emission limits consistent with 

existing controls (i.e., 0.5 lb SO2/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 

SO2 emissions from the affected units to 

32,256 lbs/d in the summer and to 

38,568 lbs/d in the winter, and 

allowable NOX 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17Many 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—TENNESSEE 2018 RPGS

[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 percent 

best 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. It 

would 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33683 

18Tennessee 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
33684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

19These 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 33685 

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 section 

205, 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. This 

Federal 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS