28582 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

12The state effective date of the rule changes to 

the definitions of ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

Tennessee’s May 28, 2009, SIP revision is May 10, 

2009. However, these changes to Tennessee’s rule 

are captured and superseded by the version of 

TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01 that was state effective on 

April 24, 2013. On July 25, 2013 (78 FR 44889), 

EPA approved portions of the April 24, 2013 

version of TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01 into the SIP and 

modified the state effective date at 40 CFR 

52.2220(c) accordingly. 

emissions’’ in Tennessee’s SIP-approved 

PSD and NNSR regulations as discussed 

above.12 EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of Tennessee’s May 28, 2009, 

SIP revision that change the definitions 

of ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01,—‘‘Construction 

Permits,’’ as discussed above. 

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. This 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); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13142 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0187; FRL–9979– 

62—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 

(Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the 

following four actions regarding the 

Tennessee State Implementation Plan 

(SIP): approve Tennessee’s November 

22, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to 

change reliance from the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain 

regional haze requirements; convert 

EPA’s limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Tennessee’s regional 

haze plan to a full approval; remove 

EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) for Tennessee which replaced 

reliance on CAIR with reliance on 

CSAPR to address the deficiencies 

identified in the limited disapproval of 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan; and 

convert the conditional approvals of the 

visibility prong of Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to full 

approvals. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2018–0187 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 telephone at (404) 562– 

9031 or via electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28583 

1CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to 

reduce SO2 and NOx emissions in 27 eastern states 

(and the District of Columbia), including Tennessee, 

that contributed to downwind nonattainment or 

interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their 

statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 

mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully 

impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain 

four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms 

of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of 

annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX

by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR 

state budgets are implemented in two phases of 

generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 

budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 

and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 

2017 and later years. 

3 In the April 24, 2012, final rule, EPA took action 

on the entire Tennessee regional haze plan 

submitted on April 4, 2008, except for 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 State’s April 4, 2008, 

regional haze plan, as later modified and 

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

See 77 FR 70689. 

4EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR 

participation for BART purposes for Georgia, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 

77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012). EPA has 

approved SIPs from several states relying on CSAPR 

participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 

47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801 

(June 12, 2012) for Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952 

(August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze Plans and Their 

Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR 

Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requires states to 

submit regional haze plans that 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 built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) as determined by 

the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR), states are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility 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. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with 

this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 

1999, and further refined the criteria for 

assessing whether an alternative 

program provides for greater reasonable 

progress in two subsequent 

rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 

1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 

60612 (October 13, 2006). 

EPA demonstrated that CAIR would 

achieve greater reasonable progress than 

BART in revisions to the regional haze 

program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104 

(July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA 

amended its regulations to provide that 

states participating in the CAIR cap-andtrade programs pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or states that remain 

subject to a CAIR FIP need not require 

affected BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs) to install, 

operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). As a result of EPA’s 

determination that CAIR was ‘‘betterthan-BART,’’ a number of states in the 

CAIR region, including Tennessee, 

relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs as an alternative to BART for 

EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in 

designing their regional haze plans. 

These states also relied on CAIR as an 

element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for 

achieving their reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) for their regional haze 

programs. However, in 2008, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 

remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur 

to preserve the environmental benefits 

provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. 

EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), 

acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA 

promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR 

and issued FIPs to implement the rule 

in CSAPR-subject states.2

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR would have superseded 

the CAIR program. 

Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling 

that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its 

resulting status as a temporary measure 

following that ruling, EPA could not 

fully approve regional haze plans to the 

extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy 

the BART requirement and the 

requirement for a LTS sufficient to 

achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 

these grounds, on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 

33642), EPA promulgated a FIP to 

replace reliance on CAIR with reliance 

on CSAPR to address the deficiencies in 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan. EPA 

finalized a limited approval and a 

limited disapproval of Tennessee’s 

regional haze plan on April 24, 2012 (77 

FR 24392). EPA’s limited approval 

finalized the determination that 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan met the 

remaining applicable regional haze 

requirements set forth in the CAA and 

the RHR.3 EPA’s limited disapproval 

was issued due to the deficiencies in 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan created 

by the plan’s reliance on CAIR for 

certain regional haze requirements. 

In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA also 

amended the RHR to provide that 

participation by a state’s EGUs in a 

CSAPR trading program for a given 

pollutant—either a CSAPR federal 

trading program implemented through a 

CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state 

trading program implemented through 

an approved CSAPR SIP revision— 

qualifies as a BART alternative for those 

EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated 

this amendment, numerous states 

covered by CSAPR have come to rely on 

the provision through either SIPs or 

FIPs.4

Numerous parties filed petitions for 

review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, 

and on August 21, 2012, the court 

issued its ruling, vacating and 

remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering 

continued implementation of CAIR. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The 

D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was 

reversed by the United States Supreme 

Court on April 29, 2014, and the case 

was remanded 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, but invalidated without 

vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to 

a number of states. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 

(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets 

include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 

budgets for Alabama, Georgia, 

Tennessee, and Texas and the Phase 2 

ozone-season NOx budgets for 11 states. 

This litigation ultimately delayed 

implementation of CSAPR for three 

years, from January 1, 2012, when 

CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were 

originally scheduled to replace the CAIR 

cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 

2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets 

that were originally promulgated to 

begin on January 1, 2014, began on 

January 1, 2017. 

On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), 

EPA issued a final rule affirming the 

continued validity of the Agency’s 2012 

determination that participation in 

CSAPR meets the RHR’s criteria for an 

alternative to the application of sourceVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:51 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JNP1.SGM 20JNP1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28584 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat’l 

Parks Conservation Ass’n v. EPA, No. 17–1253 (D.C. 

Cir. filed November 28, 2017). 

6EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South 

Carolina SIP revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on 

August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866), and August 10, 

2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively. 

7On June 15, 2017, EPA conditionally approved 

the prong 4 portions of Tennessee’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 

1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 82 

FR 27428. 

8With the exception of the interstate transport 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) 

(prongs 1, 2, and 4), the other portions of 

Tennessee’s March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2

infrastructure submission were addressed in a 

separate action. See 81 FR 85410 (November 28, 

2016). 

9With the exception of the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), and the 

interstate transport provisions of prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the other portions of Tennessee’s 

March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure 

submission were addressed in a separate action. See 

82 FR 3639 (January 12, 2017). On March 18, 2015, 

EPA approved Tennessee’s March 13, 2014, 

infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD 

permitting requirements for major sources of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. 

specific BART.5 EPA has determined 

that changes to CSAPR’s geographic 

scope resulting from the actions EPA 

has taken or expects to take in response 

to the D.C. Circuit’s budget remand do 

not affect the continued validity of 

participation in CSAPR as a BART 

alternative, because the changes in 

geographic scope would not have 

adversely affected the results of the air 

quality modeling analysis upon which 

EPA based the 2012 determination. 

EPA’s September 29, 2017, 

determination was based, in part, on 

EPA’s final action approving a SIP 

revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 

(August 31, 2016)) adopting Phase 2 

annual NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent 

to the federally-developed budgets and 

on SIP revisions submitted by Georgia 

and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 

2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets 

equivalent to the federally-developed 

budgets.6 Since that time, EPA has 

approved the SIP revisions from Georgia 

and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 

(October 13, 2017) and 82 FR 47936 

(October 13, 2017), respectively. 

Tennessee’s November 22, 2017, SIP 

submittal seeks to correct the 

deficiencies identified in the April 24, 

2012, limited disapproval of its regional 

haze plan submitted on April 4, 2008, 

by replacing reliance on CAIR with 

reliance on CSAPR. EPA is proposing to 

approve Tennessee’s request that EPA 

amend the State’s regional haze plan by 

replacing its reliance on CAIR with 

CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve 

this SIP submittal and amend the SIP 

accordingly. 

B. Infrastructure SIPs 

By statute, plans meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years (or less, if the 

Administrator so prescribes) after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states 

to address basic SIP elements such as 

for monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the newly established or 

revised NAAQS. More specifically, 

section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for the infrastructure 

SIP requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. The 

contents of an infrastructure SIP 

submission may vary depending upon 

the data and analytical tools available to 

the state, as well as the provisions 

already contained in the state’s 

implementation plan at the time in 

which the state develops and submits 

the submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and from interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3) or 

from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions ensuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

Through this action, EPA is proposing 

to convert the conditional approvals of 

the prong 4 portions of Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to full 

approvals, as discussed in section III of 

this document.7 All other applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements for these 

SIP submissions have been or will be 

addressed in separate rulemakings. A 

brief background regarding the NAAQS 

relevant to this proposal is provided 

below. For comprehensive information 

on these NAAQS, please refer to the 

Federal Register documents cited in the 

following subsections. 

1. 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 

1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS to an 

hourly standard of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb) based on a 3-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010). States were 

required to submit infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 

2013. Tennessee submitted an 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on March 13, 

2014. This proposed action only 

addresses the prong 4 element of that 

submission.8

2. 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

On January 22, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, 

based on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no 

later than January 22, 2013. Tennessee 

submitted an infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS on March 13, 2014. This 

proposed action only addresses the 

prong 4 element of that submission.9

3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

On December 14, 2012, EPA revised 

the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 

12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than 

December 14, 2015. Tennessee 

submitted an infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

on December 16, 2015. This proposed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28585 

10With the exception of the interstate transport 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) 

(prongs 1, 2, and 4), the other portions of 

Tennessee’s December 16, 2015, PM2.5

infrastructure submission were addressed in a 

separate action. See 82 FR 21706 (May 10, 2017). 

No action has been taken with respect to prongs 1 

and 2 for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

11 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

12Tennessee’s December 7, 2016, commitment 

letter is included in the docket for this action. 

action only addresses the prong 4 

element of that submission.10

II. What are the prong 4 requirements? 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires a state’s implementation plan 

to contain provisions prohibiting 

sources in that state from emitting 

pollutants in amounts that interfere 

with any other state’s efforts to protect 

visibility under part C of the CAA 

(which includes sections 169A and 

169B). EPA most recently issued 

guidance for infrastructure SIPs on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).11

The 2013 Guidance states that these 

prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by 

approved SIP provisions that EPA has 

found to adequately address any 

contribution of that state’s sources that 

impacts the visibility program 

requirements in other states. The 2013 

Guidance also states that EPA interprets 

this prong to be pollutant-specific, such 

that the infrastructure SIP submission 

need only address the potential for 

interference with protection of visibility 

caused by the pollutant (including 

precursors) to which the new or revised 

NAAQS applies. 

The 2013 Guidance lays out how a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

may satisfy prong 4. One way that a 

state can meet the requirements is via 

confirmation in its infrastructure SIP 

submission that the state has an 

approved regional haze plan that fully 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309 specifically require that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process include all measures needed to 

achieve its apportionment of emission 

reduction obligations agreed upon 

through that process. A fully approved 

regional haze plan will ensure that 

emissions from sources under an air 

agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering 

with measures required to be included 

in other air agencies’ plans to protect 

visibility. 

Alternatively, in the absence of a fully 

approved regional haze plan, a state 

may meet the requirements of prong 4 

through a demonstration in its 

infrastructure SIP submission that 

emissions within its jurisdiction do not 

interfere with other air agencies’ plans 

to protect visibility. Such an 

infrastructure SIP submission would 

need to include measures to limit 

visibility-impairing pollutants and 

ensure that the reductions conform with 

any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs 

for mandatory Class I areas in other 

states. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Tennessee addressed prong 4 and 

regional haze? 

As noted in the infrastructure SIP 

portion of Tennessee’s November 22, 

2017, SIP revision, the State’s March 13, 

2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour 

SO2 submission, and December 16, 

2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission 

rely on the State having a fully 

approved regional haze plan to satisfy 

its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA 

has not fully approved Tennessee’s 

regional haze plan as the Agency issued 

a limited disapproval of the State’s 

original regional haze plan on April 24, 

2012, due to its reliance on CAIR. On 

December 7, 2016, Tennessee submitted 

a commitment letter to EPA to submit a 

SIP revision that revises its regional 

haze plan to replace reliance on CAIR 

with CSAPR for certain regional haze 

provisions.12 In its letter, Tennessee 

committed to providing this SIP 

revision within one year of EPA’s final 

conditional approval of the prong 4 

portions of the infrastructure SIP 

revisions. On June 15, 2017 (82 FR 

27428), EPA conditionally approved the 

prong 4 portion of Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

this commitment letter from the State. 

In accordance with the State’s December 

7, 2016, commitment letter, Tennessee 

submitted a SIP revision on November 

22, 2017, to replace reliance on CAIR 

with reliance on CSAPR for certain 

regional haze provisions. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s November 22, 2017, SIP revision 

replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, 

and to convert EPA’s previous action on 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan from a 

limited approval/limited disapproval to 

a full approval because final approval of 

the SIP revision would correct the 

deficiencies that led to EPA’s limited 

approval/limited disapproval of the 

State’s regional haze plan. Specifically, 

EPA’s approval of Tennessee’s 

November 22, 2017, SIP revision would 

satisfy the SO2 and NOX BART 

requirements and first implementation 

period SO2 reasonable progress 

requirements for EGUs formerly subject 

to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS 

include measures as necessary to 

achieve the state-adopted RPGs. Thus, 

EPA is also proposing to remove EPA’s 

FIP for Tennessee which replaced 

reliance on CAIR with reliance on 

CSAPR to address the deficiencies 

identified in the limited disapproval of 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan. Because 

a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements 

through a fully approved regional haze 

plan, EPA is therefore also proposing to 

convert the conditional approvals to full 

approvals of the prong 4 portion of 

Tennessee’s March 13, 2014, 2010 

1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2

submission, and December 16, 2015, 

2012 annual PM2.5 submission. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to take the following actions: (1) 

Approve Tennessee’s November 22, 

2017, SIP submission to change reliance 

from CAIR to CSAPR in its regional haze 

plan; (2) convert EPA’s limited 

approval/limited disapproval of 

Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional haze 

plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA’s 

FIP for Tennessee which replaced 

reliance on CAIR with reliance on 

CSAPR to address the deficiencies 

identified in the limited disapproval of 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan; and (4) 

convert EPA’s June 15, 2017, 

conditional approvals to full approvals 

of the prong 4 portion of Tennessee’s 

March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 

2010 1-hour SO2 submission, and 

December 16, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5

submission. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for the 

infrastructure SIP submissions have 

been or will be addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

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. These actions merely propose 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and remove a FIP and do 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not 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); 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

actions because these actions are either 

exempted or not significant under 

Executive Order 12866; 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are 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.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are 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 

• Do 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 proposed actions do not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will they 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13146 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–9979– 

21—Region 3] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Ordnance Works Disposal Areas 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 3, is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Ordnance 

Works Disposal Areas Superfund Site 

(Site) located in Morgantown, West 

Virginia, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. For 

purposes of this action, the Site consists 

of Operable Unit 1 (OU1), an NPL-listed 

area of approximately 6 acres. Also for 

purposes of this action, and unless 

otherwise noted, the Site does not 

include Operable Unit 2 (OU2), a nonNPL listed area of approximately eight 

hundred acres. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of West Virginia, through the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP), 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation and maintenance, 

monitoring, and five-year reviews have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1986–0005, by one of the 

following methods: 

• https://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

• Email: Jeffrey Thomas at 

thomas.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeffrey Thomas (3HS23), 

Remedial Project Manager, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103. 

• Hand delivery: United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986– 

0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

https://www.regulations.gov website 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS