66596 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

S–2, for example, contains permitting 

requirements that require controls and 

emission limits for certain NOX emitting 

sources in the State. These permitting 

requirements help ensure that no new or 

modified NOX sources in the State 

subject to these permitting regulations 

will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. 

For all the reasons discussed above, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

Mississippi does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state 

and that Mississippi’s SIP includes 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the State from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of this standard in any 

other state. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve Mississippi’s May 23, 2016, 

SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: September 15, 2016. 

Kenneth R. Lapierre, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23300 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0799; FRL–9953–17– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on April 19, 2013. 

Tennessee’s April 19, 2013, SIP revision 

(Progress Report) addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

each state to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

plan). EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s Progress Report on the basis 

that it addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0799 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9031 and via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66597 

1Located in 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. 

2This April 24, 2012, action did not include the 

BART determination for Eastman Chemical 

Company (Eastman). On November 27, 2012, EPA 

finalized approval of the BART requirements for 

Eastman that were provided in the April 4, 2008, 

regional haze SIP, as later modified and 

supplemented on May 14, 2012, and May 25, 2012 

(77 FR 70689). 

3Although a number of parties challenged the 

legality of CSAPR and the D.C. Circuit initially 

vacated and remanded CSAPR to EPA in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), the United States Supreme Court 

reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision on April 29, 

2014, and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to 

resolve remaining issues in accordance with the 

high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, 

the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, 

and CSAPR is now in effect. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 

2015). 

I. Background 

Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each 

state was required to submit its first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment to 

EPA no later than December 17, 2007. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Tennessee 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

April 4, 2008, and like many other states 

subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), relied on CAIR to satisfy best 

available retrofit technology (BART) 

requirements for emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

from electric generating units (EGUs) in 

the State. On April 24, 2012, EPA 

finalized a limited approval of 

Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional haze 

plan as meeting some of the applicable 

regional haze requirements as set forth 

in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.300–308.2 Also in this 

April 24, 2012, action, EPA finalized a 

limited disapproval of Tennessee’s 

regional haze plan because of 

deficiencies arising from the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain 

regional haze requirements. See 77 FR 

24392. On June 7, 2012, EPA 

promulgated Federal Implementation 

Plans (FIPs) to replace reliance on CAIR 

with reliance on the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address 

deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional 

haze plans of several states, including 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan.3 See 77 

FR 33642. 

Each state is also required to submit 

a progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision every five years that evaluates 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the state and for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

Each state is also required to submit, at 

the same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of its 

existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 

51.308(h). The first progress report is 

due five years after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. 

On April 19, 2013, as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(g), TDEC submitted to EPA, 

in the form of a revision to Tennessee’s 

SIP, a report on progress made towards 

the RPGs for Class I areas in the State 

and for Class I areas outside the State 

that are affected by emissions from 

sources within the State. This 

submission also includes a negative 

declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1) that the State’s regional 

haze plan is sufficient in meeting the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s Progress Report on the basis 

that it satisfies the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determination 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address, at a minimum, the seven 

elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As 

described in further detail in section III 

below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A 

description of the status of measures in 

the approved regional haze plan; (2) a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; (4) an analysis of changes in 

emissions from sources and activities 

within the state; (5) an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have limited or 

impeded progress in Class I areas 

impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an 

assessment of the sufficiency of the 

approved regional haze plan; and (7) a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. 

B. Adequacy Determination of the 

Current Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report, a determination of 

the adequacy of their existing regional 

haze plan and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. As described in 

further detail in section III below, 40 

CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1) 

Submit a negative declaration to EPA 

that no further substantive revision to 

the state’s existing regional haze plan is 

needed; (2) provide notification to EPA 

(and to other state(s) that participated in 

the regional planning process) if the 

state determines that its existing 

regional haze plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze plan is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze plan to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze plan is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

III. What is EPA’s Analysis of 

Tennessee’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report and Adequacy Determination? 

On April 19, 2013, TDEC submitted a 

revision to Tennessee’s regional haze 

plan to address progress made towards 

the RPGs for Class I areas in the State 

and for Class I areas outside the State 

that are affected by emissions from 

sources within Tennessee. This 

submittal also includes a determination 

of the adequacy of the State’s existing 

regional haze plan. Tennessee has two 

Class I areas within its borders: Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park and 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 

Area. These areas are located partially 

in North Carolina and Tennessee. In its 

regional haze plan, the State also 

identified, through an area of influence 

modeling analysis based on back 

trajectories, four Class I areas in three 

neighboring states potentially impacted 

by Tennessee sources: Cohutta 

Wilderness Area in Georgia; Mammoth 

Cave National Park in Kentucky; and 

Linville Gorge and Shining Rock 

Wilderness areas in North Carolina. See 

76 FR 33662, 33683 (June 9, 2011). 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs 

The following sections summarize: (1) 

Each of the seven elements that must be 

addressed by a progress report under 40 

CFR 51.308(g); (2) how Tennessee’s 

Progress Report addressed each element; 

and (3) EPA’s analysis and proposed 

determination as to whether the State 

satisfied each element. 

1. Status of Control Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze plan for 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66598 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4See Tennessee Progress Report narrative, Table 

2–5, page 26. 

5See Table 2–4 on pages 22–24 of Tennessee’s 

Progress Report. 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. 

The State evaluated the status of 

measures included in its 2008 regional 

haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its Progress 

Report, Tennessee summarizes the 

status of the emissions reduction 

measures that were included in the final 

iteration of the Visibility Improvement 

State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze 

emissions inventory and RPG modeling 

used by the State in developing its 

regional haze plan. The measures 

include, among other things, applicable 

federal programs (e.g., mobile source 

rules, Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards), federal consent 

agreements, and federal and state 

control strategies for EGUs. 

The State also discusses the status of 

several measures that were not included 

in the final VISTAS emissions inventory 

and were not relied upon in the initial 

regional haze plan to meet RPGs, 

including EPA’s Mercury and Air 

Toxics Rule and a 2011 federal consent 

agreement with the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA). The State notes that 

the emissions reductions from these 

measures will help ensure that Class I 

areas impacted by Tennessee sources 

achieve their RPGs. 

Although Tennessee determined in its 

regional haze SIP that no additional 

controls for sources in the State were 

necessary to obtain reasonable progress 

during the first implementation period, 

Tennessee’s Progress Report identifies 

six out-of-state sources located in the 

area of influence of one or more of 

Tennessee’s Class I areas using the 

State’s methodology for determining 

sources eligible for a reasonable 

progress control determination. These 

six sources were evaluated by their 

respective states for reasonable progress. 

The Progress Report summarizes the 

reasonable progress control 

determinations made for these six 

facilities (five facilities consisting of 12 

EGUs, one non-EGU facility) in the 

surrounding States of Alabama, Georgia, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina and, 

where applicable, provides a status of 

the required controls. Of the 12 EGUs at 

five facilities in these states, nine EGUs 

already have scrubbers installed and 

three EGUs located in South Carolina 

were retired.4

In addition, the State provides an 

update on the status of EGUs in 

Tennessee identified by the states of 

Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire and 

Vermont as contributing to visibility 

impairment at the following Class I 

areas located in those states based on 

2002 emissions: Acadia National Park 

(ME), Great Gulf Wilderness Area and 

Presidential Range—Dry River 

Wilderness Area (NH), Lye Brook 

Wilderness Area (VT), and Brigantine 

Wilderness Area (NJ)). These states are 

members of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU), which 

identified 167 EGU ‘‘stacks,’’ five of 

which are in Tennessee, as contributing 

significantly to visibility impairment at 

MANE–VU Class I areas in 2002. The 

five Tennessee EGU stacks identified by 

MANE–VU are located at TVA’s 

Gallatin, John Sevier, Johnsonville, and 

Kingston plants. MANE–VU asked 

Tennessee to control the SO2 emissions 

from these EGUs with a 90 percent 

control efficiency and to adopt a control 

strategy to provide a 28 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from nonEGU emission sources that would be 

equivalent to MANE–VU’s proposed 

low sulfur residential fuel oil strategy. 

Tennessee summarizes in its Progress 

Report its February 20, 2008, response 

to the four MANE–VU states’ letters at 

the time of the State’s regional haze SIP 

development, indicating that the control 

schedule for the five identified EGU 

stacks is reasonable and adequately 

limits the emissions of SO2 for visibility 

impairment purposes. See Table 1 

below. 

TABLE 1—TENNESSEE EGU STACKS IDENTIFIED BY MANE–VU STATES

Plant name Tennessee’s February 20, 2008, response 

TVA Gallatin .................................... This plant uses low-sulfur fuel at an emission rate of 0.61 lbs SO2/mmBtu. 

TVA John Sevier ............................. TVA has announced plans to install flue gas desulfurization (FGD) by 2012. 

TVA Johnsonville ............................ This plant is burning a low-sulfur fuel (1.5 lbs SO2/mmBtu) with TVA performing testing to determine the viability of lower sulfur coal with the objective of going to 0.9 lbs SO2/mmBtu before 2015. 

TVA Kingston .................................. FGD is being installed on this stack with a construction complete date scheduled for 2010. 

TVA Kingston .................................. FGD is being installed on this stack with a construction complete date scheduled for 2010. 

As part of its Progress Report, 

Tennessee notes that these EGU stacks 

are either currently controlled with low 

sulfur coal or scrubbers with a 95 

percent SO2 control efficiency, are 

shutdown, or are scheduled for 

shutdown by 2017.5 Tennessee notes 

that the requested EGU SO2 reductions 

are exceeded through improved removal 

efficiencies at these five EGUs, the 

shutdown of eight EGUs at the four TVA 

plants as of 2015, and the scheduled 

shutdown of an additional EGU by 

2017, noting that additional reductions 

are expected for the remainder of the 

planning period. Tennessee also affirms 

that its Progress Report shows progress 

with reducing non-EGU SO2 emissions. 

EPA proposes to find that Tennessee’s 

analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1) for the reasons discussed 

below. The State documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze plan in addition to 

describing additional measures not 

originally accounted for in the final 

VISTAS emissions inventory that came 

into effect since the VISTAS analyses 

for the regional haze plan were 

completed. Tennessee reviewed the 

status of BART requirements for the four 

BART-subject sources in the State: 

Alcoa—South Plant, DuPont—Old 

Hickory, Eastman Chemical Company, 

and TVA—Cumberland Fossil Plant. 

The State’s Progress Report also 

provides detailed information on EGU 

control strategies in its regional haze 

plan and the status of existing and 

future expected controls for Tennessee’s 

EGUs because, in its regional haze plan, 

Tennessee identified SO2 emissions 

from coal-fired EGUs as the key 

contributor to regional haze in the 

VISTAS region. In its regional haze 

plan, Tennessee determined that no 

additional controls of sources in the 

State were reasonable for the first 

implementation period. Additionally, 

the State summarizes the emissions 

controls included in the regional haze 

plan for Tennessee sources in the area 

of influence of other states’ Class I areas 

and the status of these controls. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66599 

6Sulfate levels on the 20 percent worst days 

account for 60–70 percent of the visibility 

impairment at both of Tennessee’s Class I areas. For 

additional information, see Tennessee’s April 4, 

2008, regional haze plan at page 13. 

7For additional information, see Tennessee’s 

April 4, 2008, regional haze plan at page 81. 

8Table 2–4, page 31, and Appendix A of 

Tennessee’s Progress Report. 9The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the regional haze rule refers to the average 

visibility impairment (measured in deciviews) for 

the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year 

with the highest and lowest amount of visibility 

impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year 

period. 40 CFR 51.301. 

10For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’ 

conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). Joyce 

Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area does not have a 

visibility monitor; therefore, visibility data from 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park is used for 

both areas given their proximity. For more 

information see 76 FR 33669. 

2. Emissions Reductions and Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved in the state through the 

measures subject to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its regional haze plan and Progress 

Report, Tennessee focuses its 

assessment on SO2 emissions from 

EGUs because of VISTAS’ findings that 

ammonium sulfate accounted for more 

than 70 percent of the visibilityimpairing pollution in the VISTAS 

states 6 and that SO2 point source 

emissions are projected to represent 

more than 95 percent of the total SO2

emissions in the VISTAS states in 

2018.7 As discussed in section III.A.5, 

below, Tennessee determined that 

sulfates continue to be the largest 

contributor to regional haze for Class I 

areas in the State. 

In its Progress Report, Tennessee 

presents SO2 emissions data for 33 

EGUs at seven facilities in the State that 

were projected to have controls 

installed, or projected to retire, by 2018 

in Tennessee’s regional haze SIP. Actual 

SO2 emissions reductions from 2002 to 

2011 for these Tennessee EGUs (199,568 

tons per year (tpy)) are already close to 

the projected SO2 emissions reductions 

from 2002 to 2018 estimated in 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan for these 

EGUs (207,540 tpy).8 Tennessee also 

includes SO2 and NOx emissions data 

from 2002–2010 for EGUs in Tennessee 

subject to reporting under the Acid Rain 

Program. This data shows a decline in 

these emissions over this time period 

and that the SO2 reductions are higher 

than those estimated for these units in 

the State’s regional haze SIP between 

2002–2018. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, 

the State provides estimates, and where 

available, actual emissions reductions of 

SO2 and NOX at EGUs in the State 

resulting from the measures relied upon 

in its regional haze plan. The State 

appropriately focused on SO2 emissions 

from its EGUs in its Progress Report 

because the State had previously 

identified these emissions as the most 

significant contributors to visibility 

impairment at Tennessee’s Class I areas 

and those areas that Tennessee sources 

impact. 

3. Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that 

states with Class I areas provide the 

following information for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: 9 (i) Current visibility 

conditions; (ii) the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions; and (iii) 

the change in visibility impairment over 

the past five years. 

Tennessee provides figures with 

visibility monitoring data that address 

the three requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) for the State’s two Class I 

areas. Tennessee reported current 

conditions as the 2006–2010 five-year 

time period and used the 2000–2004 

baseline period for its Class I areas.10

Table 2, below, shows the current 

visibility conditions and the difference 

between current visibility conditions 

and baseline visibility conditions. Table 

3 shows the changes in visibility from 

2006–2010 in terms of five-year 

averages. 

TABLE 2—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN TENNESSEE

Class I area Baseline 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

(2006–2010) Difference RPG (2018) 

20% Worst Days: 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park .................................................... 30.3 26.6 ¥3.7 23.5 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .............................................................................. 30.3 26.6 ¥3.7 23.5 

20% Best Days: 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park .................................................... 13.6 12.3 ¥1.3 12.1 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .............................................................................. 13.6 12.3 ¥1.3 12.1 

TABLE 3—CHANGES IN 5-YEAR VISIBILITY AVERAGES FROM 2006–2010 

Class I area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

20% Worst Days: 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park ........................ 30.4 30.6 29.8 28.5 26.6 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .................................................. 30.4 30.6 29.8 28.5 26.6 

20% Best Days: 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park ........................ 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.4 12.3 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock .................................................. 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.4 12.3 

All Tennessee Class I areas saw an 

improvement in visibility between 

baseline and 2006–2010 conditions and 

an overall decline in the five-year 

average visibility averages from 2006– 

2010. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State 

provides the information regarding 

visibility conditions and visibility 

changes necessary to meet the 

requirements of the regulation. The 

Progress Report includes current 

conditions based on the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring 

data for the years 2006–2010, the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66600 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11The 2008 NEI data was the most recent NEI 

data available at the time that Tennessee submitted 

its Progress Report. 

difference between current visibility 

conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions, and the change in visibility 

impairment over the five-year period 

2006–2010. 

4. Emissions Tracking 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an 

analysis tracking emission changes of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. 

In its Progress Report, Tennessee 

presents data from a statewide actual 

emissions inventory for 2008 and 

compares this data to the baseline 

emissions inventory for 2002 (actual 

and typical emissions) from its regional 

haze plan. For the typical 2002 

stationary point source emissions 

inventory, Tennessee adjusted the EGU 

emissions for a typical year so that if 

sources were shut down or operating 

above or below normal, the emissions 

are normalized to a typical emissions 

inventory year. The typical year data is 

used to develop projected typical future 

year emissions inventories. The 

pollutants inventoried include volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), ammonia 

(NH3) NOX, coarse particulate matter 

(PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 

and SO2. The emissions inventories 

include the following source 

classifications: Point, area, biogenics, 

non-road mobile, and on-road mobile 

sources. 

Tennessee includes the actual and 

typical emissions inventories from its 

regional haze plan for 2002, and 

summarizes emissions data from EPA’s 

2008 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI).11 Tennessee’s analysis shows that 

2008 emissions are lower than both the 

actual and typical 2002 emissions. 

Tennessee estimated on-road mobile 

source emissions in the 2008 inventory 

using the MOVES model. This model 

tends to estimate higher emissions for 

NOX and PM than its previous 

counterpart, the MOBILE6.2 model, 

used by the State to estimate on-road 

mobile source emissions for the 2002 

inventories. Despite the change in 

methodology, a declining trend in all 

pollutants can be seen between 2002 

and 2008 when comparing Tables 4 and 

5 to Table 6. 

TABLE 4—2002 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE (TPY) 

Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

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

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

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

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 66,450 96,827 6,458 6,819 43 10,441 

Biogenics .................................................. 894,214 18,081 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................. 1,379,234 593,072 93,305 274,976 42,897 463,364 

TABLE 5—2002 TYPICAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE (TPY) 

Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 85,218 216,481 39,298 49,040 1,810 399,750 

Area .......................................................... 153,783 18,061 43,410 213,538 34,439 29,977 

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

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 66,450 96,827 6,458 6,819 43 10,441 

Biogenics .................................................. 894,214 18,081 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................. 1,379,472 588,027 93,115 274,768 42,917 449,394 

TABLE 6—2008 ACTUAL EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR TENNESSEE (TPY) 

Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 38,155 134,162 15,551 20,734 1,193 258,033 

Area .......................................................... 104,305 43,388 46,672 194,631 34,898 65,026 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 80,476 213,973 8,441 10,445 3,167 3,903 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 50,525 35,593 3,305 3,470 38 591 

Biogenics .................................................. 786,087 13,682 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................. 1,059,548 440,798 73,969 229,280 39,296 327,553 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(4). Tennessee tracked 

changes in emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from 2002–2008 

for all source categories and analyzed 

trends in emissions from 2002–2008, the 

most current quality-assured data 

available for these units at the time of 

progress report development. While 

ideally the five-year period to be 

analyzed for emissions inventory 

changes is the time period since the 

current regional haze plan was 

submitted, there is an inevitable time 

lag in developing and reporting 

complete emissions inventories once 

quality-assured emissions data becomes 

available. Therefore, EPA believes that 

there is some flexibility in the five-year 

time period that states can select. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66601 

12See pages 35–37 and 48–55 of Tennessee’s 

Progress Report. 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. 

In its Progress Report, Tennessee 

documented that sulfates, which are 

formed from SO2 emissions, continue to 

be the biggest single contributor to 

regional haze for Class I areas in the 

State and therefore focused its analysis 

on large SO2 emissions from point 

sources. In addressing the requirements 

at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), Tennessee 

demonstrates that sulfate contributions 

to visibility impairment have decreased 

from 2006 to 2010 along with an 

improvement in visibility at Class I 

areas in Tennessee, and examines other 

potential pollutants of concern affecting 

visibility at these areas. The State 

presents data for the 20 percent worst 

days showing that ammonium sulfate is 

responsible for 74 percent of the 

regional haze at Tennessee’s two Class 

I areas for the period 2006–2010, with 

primary organic matter as the next 

largest contributor at 12 percent. The 

State notes that there are no significant 

changes in anthropogenic emissions that 

have impeded progress in reducing 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by Tennessee 

sources. Furthermore, the Progress 

Report shows that the State is on track 

to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I 

areas in Tennessee. For these reasons, 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Tennessee’s Progress Report has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5). 

6. Assessment of Current Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze plan is sufficient to enable 

the state, or other states, to meet the 

RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the state. 

The State believes that it is on track 

to meet the 2018 RPGs for the Tennessee 

Class I areas and will not impede Class 

I areas outside of Tennessee from 

meeting their RPGs based on the trends 

in visibility and emissions presented in 

its Progress Report. In its Progress 

Report, Tennessee provided 

reconstructed light extinction figures for 

the 20 percent worst days for Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park for 

2006 through 2010, noting similar 

results at Joyce Kilmer Class I area. The 

20 percent worst days extinction clearly 

demonstrates that sulfates continue to 

be the largest contributor to visibility 

impairment at these Class I areas, with 

stationary point sources being the 

largest source of SO2 emissions in 

Tennessee. As identified in Tables 3–1 

and 3–2 and Appendix A of the Progress 

Report, SO2 emissions from EGUs in 

Tennessee have decreased from 2002 to 

2011. Also, the emissions data provided 

in Table 3–1 of the Progress Report 

show a declining trend in NOX

emissions from 2002 to 2010 for EGUs 

in Tennessee. Tennessee also provides 

visibility data for the State’s two Class 

I areas (Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park and Joyce KilmerSlickrock Wilderness Area) and the 

Class I areas potentially impacted by the 

State’s sources (Cohutta Wilderness 

Area (Cohutta) in Georgia, Mammoth 

Cave National Park (Mammoth Cave) in 

Kentucky, and Linville Gorge and 

Shining Rock Wilderness Areas in North 

Carolina)) and notes that this data 

shows that these areas are on track to 

achieve their RPGs by 2018.12

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Tennessee has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information, including 

expected emissions reductions 

associated with measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. In its assessment, the 

State references the improving visibility 

trends and the downward emissions 

trends in the State, with a focus on SO2

emissions from Tennessee EGUs. These 

trends support the State’s determination 

that the State’s regional haze plan is 

sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas 

within and outside the State impacted 

by Tennessee sources. 

7. Review of Current Monitoring 

Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review 

of the state’s visibility monitoring 

strategy and an assessment of whether 

any modifications to the monitoring 

strategy are necessary. 

Tennessee’s Progress Report 

summarizes the existing monitoring 

network in the State to monitor 

visibility in Tennessee’s Class I areas 

and concludes that no modifications to 

the existing visibility monitoring 

strategy are necessary. The primary 

monitoring network for regional haze, 

both nationwide and in Tennessee, is 

the IMPROVE network. There is 

currently one IMPROVE site in 

Tennessee which serves as the 

monitoring site for both the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park and 

Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 

Area. 

The State also explains the 

importance of the IMPROVE monitoring 

network for tracking visibility trends at 

Class I areas in Tennessee. Tennessee 

states that data produced by the 

IMPROVE monitoring network will be 

used nearly continuously for preparing 

the 5-year progress reports and the 10- 

year SIP revisions, each of which relies 

on analysis of the preceding five years 

of data, and thus, the State notes that 

the monitoring data from the IMPROVE 

sites needs to be readily accessible and 

to be kept up to date. The Visibility 

Information Exchange Web System Web 

site has been maintained by VISTAS 

and the other Regional Planning 

Organizations to provide ready access to 

the IMPROVE data and data analysis 

tools. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, some ongoing long-term 

limited monitoring supported by 

Federal Land Managers provides 

additional insight into progress toward 

regional haze goals. Tennessee benefits 

from the data from these measurements, 

but is not responsible for associated 

funding decisions to maintain these 

measurements into the future. 

In addition, TDEC and the local air 

agencies in the State operate a 

comprehensive PM2.5 network of the 

filter-based federal reference method 

monitors, continuous mass monitors, 

and filter-based speciated monitors. 

These PM2.5 measurements help the 

TDEC characterize air pollution levels 

in areas across the State, and therefore 

aid in the analysis of visibility 

improvement in and near the Class I 

areas in Tennessee. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Tennessee has adequately addressed the 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The 

State reaffirmed its continued reliance 

upon the IMPROVE monitoring 

network; assessed its entire visibility 

monitoring network, including 

additional continuous sulfate and PM2.5

monitors, used to further understand 

visibility trends in the State; and 

determined that no changes to its 

monitoring strategy are necessary. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report. The following section 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

13See page 42 of Tennessee’s Progress Report. 

14As discussed earlier, these EGUs were 

projected to have controls installed, or projected to 

retire, by 2018 in Tennessee’s regional haze SIP. 

summarizes: (1) The action taken by 

Tennessee under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) 

Tennessee’s rationale for the selected 

action; and (3) EPA’s analysis and 

proposed determination regarding the 

State’s action. 

In its Progress Report, Tennessee took 

the action provided for by 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA if 

the state determines that the existing 

regional haze plan requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s negative declaration is the 

findings from the Progress Report, 

including the findings that: Visibility 

has improved at Class I areas in 

Tennessee and at Class I areas impacted 

by sources in Tennessee; overall 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants from the State’s sources have 

decreased from 2002 to 2008 by 

approximately 25 percent 13 and 

emissions of SO2 from certain EGUs in 

Tennessee have decreased by 

approximately 200,000 tons from 2002– 

2010; 14 and additional EGU control 

measures not relied upon in the State’s 

regional haze plan have occurred or will 

occur in the implementation period and 

are expected to continue to trend 

downward. EPA proposes to conclude 

that Tennessee has adequately 

addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the 

visibility trends at the Class I areas 

impacted by the State’s sources and the 

emissions trends of the State’s largest 

emitters of visibility-impairing 

pollutants indicate that the RPGs for 

Class I areas impacted by source in 

Tennessee will be met. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP revision, submitted by the 

State on April 19, 2013, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 15, 2016. 

Kenneth R. Lapierre, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23291 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0269; FRL–9953–12– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky-Indiana Area to Attainment 

of the 2008 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky-Indiana area is attaining the 

2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

standard) and to approve a request from 

the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency (Ohio EPA) to redesignate the 

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area to attainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS because the request meets the 

statutory requirements for redesignation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes 

Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, 

and Warren Counties in Ohio; 

Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn 

County, Indiana; and, Boone, Campbell, 

and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. Ohio 

EPA submitted this request on April 21, 

2016. EPA is also proposing to approve, 

as a revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s 

plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard through 2030 in the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the state’s 2020 and 2030 

volatile organic compound (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Ohio 

and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0269 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS