28568 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this proposed 

requirement based on a reasoned 

determination that the benefits would 

justify the costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected this approach to maximize net 

benefits. Based on the analysis that 

follows, the Department believes that 

this regulatory action is consistent with 

the principles in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. This regulatory action 

may result in a subset of grantees under 

this program recovering less funds for 

indirect costs than they would 

otherwise have recovered prior to this 

proposed new maximum indirect cost 

rate, which could impact their 

operations. Further, it could result in 

particular entities not seeking funding 

under this program because of an 

inability to operate under this proposed 

new maximum indirect cost rate. 

However, we believe that the benefits to 

program beneficiaries of utilizing a 

higher percentage of program funds for 

direct services outweigh these costs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This document does not contain 

Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. 

The Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination to Improve Services and 

Results for Children with Disabilities 

program has been approved by OMB to 

collect data under OMB 1820–0028. The 

proposed requirement would not impact 

the approved and active data collection. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. This 

document provides early notification of 

our specific plans and actions for this 

program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact persons 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. You may access the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the 

Code of Federal Regulations via the 

Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys. At this site you can view this 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Johnny W. Collett, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13269 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0542; FRL–9979– 

65—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Knox 

County NSR Reform 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

several Tennessee State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

Tennessee Department of Environment 

& Conservation (TDEC), on behalf of 

Knox County’s Air Quality Management 

Division, on March 7, 2017, and April 

17, 2017. The SIP revisions modify the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) regulations in the Knox 

County portion of the Tennessee SIP to 

address changes to the federal new 

source review (NSR) regulations in 

recent years for the implementation of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Additionally, the 

SIP revisions include updates to Knox 

County’s minor source permitting 

regulations. This action is being 

proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. FDMS 

Docket ID Number EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0542 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28569 

1For full details on the six issues reconsidered by 

EPA, refer to the July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44624) 

document. 

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: 

Andres Febres of the 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. The telephone 

number is (404) 562–8966. Mr. Febres 

can also be reached via electronic mail 

at febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. Background 

A. 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

B. PM2.5 NAAQS 

1. Implementation of NSR for the PM2.5

NAAQS and Grandfathering Provisions 

2. PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule 

3. PM2.5 Subpart 4 Litigation 

4. PM2.5 PSD-Increments-SILs-SMC Rule 

C. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Phase 2 

Rule 

D. Greenhouse Gases and Plant-wide 

Applicability Limits 

E. Equipment Replacement Provisions 

III. Analysis of State’s Submittal 

A. Tennessee’s March 7, 2017, NNSR and 

PSD Submittals 

1. Definition of ‘‘Baseline Actual 

Emissions’’ 

2. Fugitive Emissions Rule 

3. GHG Tailoring Rule 

B. Tennessee’s April 17, 2017, NNSR 

Changes 

C. Tennessee’s April 17, 2017, Minor 

Source Permit Changes 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve changes 

to the Knox County portion of the 

Tennessee SIP regarding PSD and NNSR 

permitting, as well as updates to minor 

NSR, submitted by TDEC on behalf of 

Knox County’s Air Quality Management 

Division. On March 7, 2017, Tennessee 

submitted two SIP revisions updating 

Knox County’s Air Quality Management 

Regulations, Section 41.0 entitled 

‘‘Regulations for the Review of New 

Sources,’’ and Section 45.0 entitled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration.’’ On April 17, 2017, 

Tennessee submitted two additional SIP 

revisions, including additional changes 

to Section 41, and updates to Section 

25.0 entitled ‘‘Permits.’’ These SIP 

revisions are meant to address changes 

to the federal NSR regulations, as 

promulgated by EPA in various rules, 

and described below. EPA is proposing 

to approve the aforementioned SIP 

submittals in their entirety. Additional 

detail on the analysis of these SIP 

submittals and our reasoning for 

proposing to approve them is presented 

below. 

II. Background 

A. 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published final rule revisions to title 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

51 and 52, regarding the CAA’s PSD and 

NNSR programs. See 67 FR 80186 

(hereinafter referred to as the 2002 NSR 

Rule). The revisions included five 

changes to the major NSR program that 

would reduce burden, maximize 

operating flexibility, improve 

environmental quality, provide 

additional certainty, and promote 

administrative efficiency. These 

elements included baseline actual 

emissions, actual-to-projected-actual 

emissions methodology, plant-wide 

applicability limits (PALs), Clean Units, 

and pollution control projects (PCPs). 

The final rule also codified a 

longstanding policy regarding the 

calculation of baseline emissions for 

electric utility steam generating units 

and the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ that clarifies which 

pollutants are regulated under the Act 

for purposes of major NSR. 

Following publication of the 2002 

NSR Rule, EPA received numerous 

petitions requesting reconsideration of 

several aspects of the final rule, along 

with portions of EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules. 

See 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). On 

July 30, 2003, EPA granted petitions for 

reconsideration of six issues presented 

by the petitioners and opened a new 

comment period for the public.1 As a 

result of the reconsideration, on 

November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA 

published the NSR Reform 

Reconsideration Rule. In the 

reconsideration rule, EPA made a final 

determination not to change any of the 

six issues opened for reconsideration, 

but did make two clarifications to the 

rule. These two clarifications included: 

(1) Adding the definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ to indicate that it is 

considered an existing unit in terms of 

major NSR applicability, and (2) 

specifying that the PAL baseline 

calculation procedures for newly 

constructed units do not apply to 

modified units. The 2002 NSR Rule and 

the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule 

are hereinafter collectively referred to as 

the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ 

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules were 

challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit), and the court issued a decision 

on the challenges on June 24, 2005. See 

New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 

(D.C. Cir. 2005). In summary, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated portions of EPA’s NSR 

rules pertaining to Clean Units and 

PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules 

regarding recordkeeping and the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ found in 40 

CFR 52.21(r)(6), 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), 

and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) to EPA, and 

either upheld or did not comment on 

the other provisions included as part of 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On June 13, 

2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final 

action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules to exclude the portions that were 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit. 

Meanwhile, EPA continued to move 

forward with its evaluation of the 

portion of its NSR Reform Rules that 

were remanded by the D.C. Circuit. On 

March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10445), EPA 

responded to the Court’s remand 

regarding the recordkeeping provisions 

by proposing two alternative options to 

clarify what constitutes ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ and when the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ recordkeeping requirements 

apply. The ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

standard identifies the circumstances 

under which a major stationary source 

must keep records for modifications that 

do not trigger major NSR. EPA later 

finalized these changes on December 21, 

2007 (72 FR 72607). 

Separately from the petitions received 

that led to the 2002 NSR 

Reconsideration Rule, EPA received 

another petition for reconsideration on 

July 11, 2003. Specifically, the 

petitioner requested EPA to reconsider 

the inclusion of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ 

when assessing whether a proposed 

physical or operational change qualified 

as a ‘‘major modification.’’ On 

November 13, 2007, EPA granted the 

petition for reconsideration, and on 

December 19, 2008, finalized the 

revision of the language to clarify which 

types of sources were required to 

include ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ in their 

calculations. See 73 FR 77882 

(hereinafter referred to as the Fugitive 

Emissions Rule). 

Finally, on February 17, 2009, EPA 

received one additional petition 

challenging the Fugitive Emissions 

Rule. Due to this petition, and after 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28570 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2EPA originally established a three-month stay 

that became effective September 30, 2009 (74 FR 

50115), which was later extended for an additional 

three months, effective December 31, 2009 (74 FR 

65692). In order to allow for more time for the 

reconsideration and for public comment on any 

potential revisions to the Fugitive Emissions Rule, 

EPA established a longer 18-month stay that became 

effective on March 31, 2010 (75 FR 16012). 

3After EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM2.5 in 

1997, the Agency issued a guidance document 

entitled ‘‘Interim Implementation of New Source 

Review Requirements for PM2.5,’’ which allows for 

the regulation of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 until 

significant technical issues were resolved (the 

‘‘PM10 Surrogate Policy’’). John S. Seitz, EPA, 

October 23, 1997. 

4Sources that applied for a PSD permit under the 

federal PSD program on or after July 15, 2008, are 

already excluded from using the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy as a means of satisfying the PSD 

requirements for PM2.5. See 73 FR 28321. 

5On July 21, 2011, as a result of reconsidering the 

interpollutant trading (IPT) policy, EPA issued a 

memorandum indicating that the existing preferred 

precursor offset ratios associated with the IPT 

policy and promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule were 

no longer considered approvable. The 

memorandum stated that any PM2.5 precursor offset 

ratio submitted as part of the NSR SIP for PM2.5

nonattainment areas would need to be accompanied 

by a technical demonstration exhibiting how the 

ratios are suitable for that particular nonattainment 

area. See Memorandum from Gina McCarthy to 

Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘Revised Policy to 

Address Reconsideration of Interpollutant Trading 

Provisions for Fine Particles (PM2.5)’’ (July 21, 2011) 

(available at https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/ 

guidance/clarification/pm25trade.pdf). 

several stays,2 EPA established an 

interim stay on March 30, 2011 (76 FR 

17548), in which most of the Fugitive 

Emissions Rule language was stayed 

indefinitely. With the March 30, 2011, 

stay, EPA specified which portions of 40 

CFR 51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR 

52.21 were stayed indefinitely, which 

were reinstated, and which were 

revised, in order to revert the federal 

rules to regulatory language that existed 

prior to the Fugitive Emissions Rule. 

In summary, after several court 

decisions and public petitions, the 

federal major NSR program (found in 40 

CFR 51.165, 51.166, and 52.21) no 

longer includes the provisions related to 

Clean Units or PCPs that were part of 

the 2002 NSR reform rules. 

Additionally, an indefinite stay has 

been placed on the language related to 

the Fugitive Emissions Rule. Knox 

County is adopting all of the surviving 

provisions from the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, and is not adopting all those 

provisions that were either vacated or 

stayed indefinitely. More details on 

Knox County’s adoption of the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules and our analysis of 

its submittals can be found in section III 

below. 

B. PM2.5 NAAQS 

1. Implementation of NSR for the PM2.5

NAAQS and Grandfathering Provisions 

On May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321), EPA 

published the ‘‘Implementation of the 

New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ Final Rule 

(hereinafter referred to as the NSR PM2.5

Rule). The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule revised 

the NSR program requirements to 

establish the framework for 

implementing preconstruction permit 

review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both 

attainment and nonattainment areas. As 

indicated in the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, 

major stationary sources seeking permits 

must begin directly satisfying the PM2.5

requirements, as of the effective date of 

the rule, rather than relying on PM10 as 

a surrogate, with two exceptions. The 

first exception was a ‘‘grandfathering’’ 

provision in the federal PSD program at 

40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). This 

grandfathering provision applied to 

sources that had applied for, but had not 

yet received, a final and effective PSD 

permit before the July 15, 2008, effective 

date of the May 2008 final rule. The 

second exception was that states with 

SIP-approved PSD programs could 

continue to implement a policy in 

which PM10 served as a surrogate for 

PM2.5 for up to three years (until May 

2011) or until the individual revised 

state PSD programs for PM2.5 are 

approved by EPA, whichever came 

first.3

On February 11, 2010 (75 FR 6827), 

EPA proposed to repeal the 

grandfathering provision for PM2.5

contained in the federal PSD program at 

40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi) and to end early 

the PM10 Surrogate Policy applicable in 

states that have a SIP-approved PSD 

program. In support of this proposal, 

EPA explained that the PM2.5

implementation issues that led to the 

adoption of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in 

1997 had been largely resolved to a 

degree sufficient for sources and 

permitting authorities to conduct 

meaningful permit-related PM2.5

analyses. On May 18, 2011 (76 FR 

28646), EPA took final action to repeal 

the PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 

CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). This final action 

ended the use of the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy for PSD permits under 

the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 

52.21. In effect, any PSD permit 

applicant previously covered by the 

grandfathering provision (for sources 

that completed and submitted a permit 

application before July 15, 2008) 4 that 

did not have a final and effective PSD 

permit before the effective date of the 

repeal will not be able to rely on the 

1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy to satisfy 

the PSD requirements for PM2.5 unless 

the application includes a valid 

surrogacy demonstration. 

The NSR PM2.5 Rule also established 

the following NSR requirements to 

implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) 

Required NSR permits to address 

directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor 

pollutants; (2) established significant 

emission rates for direct PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants (including sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX)); (3) established PM2.5 emission 

offsets; and (4) required states to 

account for gases that condense to form 

particles (‘‘condensables’’) in PM2.5 and 

PM10 emission limits in PSD or NNSR 

permits. In addition, the NSR PM2.5 Rule 

gives states the option of allowing 

interpollutant trading for the purpose of 

precursor offsets under the PM2.5 NNSR 

program.5 Knox County did not adopt 

this optional interpollutant trading in its 

March 7, 2017, nor April 17, 2017, SIP 

revisions. Knox County is thereby being 

consistent with the State, since 

Tennessee does not currently have this 

interpollutant trading approved into its 

SIP. 

2. PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule 

Among the changes included in the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule mentioned above, 

the EPA revised the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ for PSD to 

add a paragraph providing that 

‘‘particulate matter (PM) emissions, 

PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions 

shall include gaseous emissions from a 

source or activity which condense to 

form particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures’’ and that on or after 

January 1, 2011, ‘‘such condensable 

particulate matter shall be accounted for 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM, PM2.5 and PM10 in permits.’’ See 73 

FR 28321 at 28348 (May 16, 2008). A 

similar paragraph added to the NNSR 

rule did not include ‘‘particulate matter 

(PM) emissions.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(D). 

On October 25, 2012 (77 FR 65107), 

EPA took final action to amend the 

definition, promulgated in the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule, of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ contained in the PM 

condensable provision at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(i) and 

appendix S to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the PM2.5

Condensables Correction Rule). The 

PM2.5 Condensables Correction Rule 

removed the inadvertent requirement in 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that the 

measurement of condensable particulate 

matter be included as part of the 

measurement and regulation of 

‘‘particulate matter emissions’’ under 

the PSD program. The term ‘‘particulate 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28571 

6The Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra 

Club, American Lung Association, and Medical 

Advocates for Healthy Air challenged before the 

D.C. Circuit EPA’s April 25, 2007 Rule entitled 

‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586), which established detailed 

implementation regulations to assist states with the 

development of SIPs to demonstrate attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 

separate May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (which is 

considered in this proposed rulemaking). This 

proposed rulemaking only pertains to the impacts 

of the Court’s decision on the May 16, 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule and not the April 25, 2007 

implementation rule as the State’s May 2, 2011 SIP 

revision adopts the NSR permitting provisions 

established in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. 

7This rule is entitled ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule,’’ Final Rule, 72 FR 20586 

(hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rule). 

8The rule is entitled ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’, Final Rule, 79 FR 31566 

(June 2, 2014). This final rule also identifies the 

initial classification of current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

nonattainment areas as moderate and the EPA 

guidance and relevant rulemakings that are 

currently available regarding implementation of 

subpart 4 requirements. 

9The ‘‘Knoxville Area’’ refers to the NAA for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which has since been 

redesignated. The area was comprised of the entire 

Anderson, Blount, Knoxville, and Loudon Counties, 

as well as a portion of Roane County, in Tennessee. 

This NAA was also referred to as the KnoxvilleSevierville-La Follette, Tennessee Area. 

10On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 

8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million— 

also referred to as the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Continued 

matter emissions’’ includes only 

filterable particles that are larger than 

PM2.5 and larger than PM10. 

3. PM2.5 Subpart 4 Litigation 

On January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a judgment 6 that remanded 

EPA’s April 25, 2007 7 and May 16, 2008 

PM2.5 implementation rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

See Natural Resources Defense Council 

v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

The Court found that because the 

statutory definition of PM10 (see section 

302(t) of the CAA) included particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 10 micrometers, it 

necessarily includes PM2.5. EPA had 

developed the 2007 and 2008 Rules (or 

NSR PM2.5 Rule) consistent with the 

general nonattainment area (NAA) 

requirements of subpart 1 of Part D, title 

I, of the CAA. Relative to subpart 1, 

subpart 4 of Part D, title I includes 

additional provisions that apply to PM10

NAAs and is more specific about what 

states must do to bring areas into 

attainment. In particular, subpart 4 

includes section 189(e) of the CAA, 

which requires the control of major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors 

(and hence under the court decision, 

PM2.5 precursors) ‘‘except where the 

Administrator determines that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM10 levels which exceed the 

standard in the area.’’ The court ordered 

EPA to re-promulgate the 1997 PM2.5

implementation rules pursuant to 

subpart 4, rather than subpart 1. 

On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA 

published a final rule 8 which, in part, 

set a December 31, 2014, deadline for 

states to make any remaining required 

attainment-related and NNSR SIP 

submissions, pursuant to and 

considering the application of subpart 4. 

Requirements under subpart 4 for a 

moderate NAA are generally comparable 

to subpart 1, including: (1) CAA section 

189(a)(1)(A) (NNSR permit program); (2) 

section 189(a)(1)(B) (attainment 

demonstration or demonstration that 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date is impracticable); (3) section 

189(a)(1)(C) (reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT)); and (4) section 189(c) 

(reasonable further progress and 

quantitative milestones). The additional 

requirements pursuant to subpart 4 as 

opposed to subpart 1 correspond to 

section 189(e) (precursor requirements 

for major stationary sources). Further 

additional SIP planning requirements 

are introduced by subpart 4 in the case 

that a moderate NAA is reclassified to 

a serious NAA, or in the event that the 

moderate NAA needs additional time to 

attain the NAAQS. The additional 

requirements under subpart 4 are not 

applicable for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E) in any area that has 

submitted a complete redesignation 

request prior to the due date for those 

requirements. As discussed below, the 

Knoxville Area 9 has since been 

redesignated to attainment for the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

4. PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC Rule 

On October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64863), 

EPA published a final rulemaking 

entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5),’’ amending the requirements for 

PM2.5 under the federal PSD program 

(also referred to as the PM2.5 PSDIncrements-SILs-SMC Rule). The 

October 20, 2010, final rulemaking 

established the following: (1) PM2.5

increments pursuant to section 166(a) of 

the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas 

meeting the NAAQS; (2) PM2.5

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for PSD 

and NNSR; and (3) Significant 

Monitoring Concentration (SMC) for 

PSD purposes. 

Subsequently, in response to a 

challenge to the PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

provisions of the PM2.5 PSD-IncrementSILs-SMC Rule, the D.C. Circuit vacated 

and remanded to EPA the portions of 

the rule addressing PM2.5 SILs, except 

for the PM2.5 SILs promulgated in EPA’s 

NNSR rules at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 469 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit also 

vacated the parts of the rule establishing 

a PM2.5 SMC for PSD purposes. Id. EPA 

removed these vacated provisions in a 

December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73698), final 

rule. 

The PM2.5 SILs promulgated in EPA’s 

NNSR regulations at 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2) were not vacated by the 

D.C. Circuit because unlike the SILs 

promulgated in the PSD regulations (40 

CFR 51.166, 52.21), the SILs 

promulgated in the NNSR regulations at 

40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) do not serve to 

exempt a source from conducting a 

cumulative air quality analysis. Rather, 

the SILs promulgated at 40 CFR 

51.165(b)(2) establish levels at which a 

proposed new major source or major 

modification located in an area 

designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable for any NAAQS would be 

considered to cause or contribute to a 

violation of a NAAQS in any area. For 

this reason, the D.C. Circuit left the 

PM2.5 SILs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) in 

place. 

Consistent with the D.C. Circuit 

decision, and EPA’s removal, Knox 

County did not adopt these vacated 

portions of the PM2.5 PSD-IncrementSILs-SMC Rule, regarding the PM2.5 SILs 

and SMC provisions for PSD permitting. 

Knox County did adopt the remaining 

portions of the PM2.5 PSD-IncrementSILs-SMC Rule, which includes the 

PM2.5 PSD Increments and the NNSR 

portion of the PM2.5 SILs provisions. 

C. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Phase 2 

Rule 

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

EPA published a final rule entitled 

‘‘Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To 

Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 

Amendments Relating to New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 

Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone 

NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated 

Gasoline’’ (hereinafter referred to as the 

Phase 2 Rule). The Phase 2 Rule 

addressed control and planning 

requirements as they applied to areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS 10 such as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28572 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas as 

unclassifiable/attainment, nonattainment and 

unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In addition, on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), as part 

of the framework to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, EPA promulgated an 

implementation rule in two phases (Phase I and II). 

The Phase I Rule (effective on June 15, 2004), 

provided the implementation requirements for 

designating areas under subpart 1 and subpart 2 of 

the CAA. 

11See the rule entitled ‘‘Reconsideration of 

Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs,’’ Final Rule, 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

12CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions refers to 

emissions of six recognized GHGs other than CO2

which are scaled to equivalent CO2 emissions by 

relative global warming potential values, then 

summed with CO2 to determine a total equivalent 

emissions value. See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(ii) and 

52.21(b)(49)(ii). 

reasonably available control technology, 

reasonably available control measures, 

reasonable further progress, modeling 

and attainment demonstrations, NSR, 

and the impact to reformulated gasoline 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

transition. The NSR permitting 

requirements established in the rule 

included the following provisions: (1) 

Recognized NOX as an ozone precursor 

for PSD purposes; (2) established major 

stationary thresholds (marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, and extreme 

NAA classifications) in the NNSR rules; 

(3) established significant emission rates 

for the 8-hour ozone, PM10 and carbon 

monoxide NAAQS; and (4) revised the 

criteria for crediting emission 

reductions credits from operation 

shutdowns and curtailments as offsets, 

and changes to offset ratios for marginal, 

moderate, serious, severe, and extreme 

ozone NAA. 

The March 7, 2017, SIP submittals 

requesting adoption of Knox County 

regulations 41 and 45 adopt all the NSR 

provisions of the Phase 2 Rule as they 

appear in the federal NNSR and PSD 

rules, effectively recognizing NOX as a 

precursor to ozone as well as 

establishing major stationary thresholds, 

significant emission rates, and offset 

ratios. The adoption of these provisions 

is consistent with the federal NSR rules 

as well as TDEC’s rules. 

D. Greenhouse Gases and Plant-Wide 

Applicability Limits 

On January 2, 2011, emissions of 

greenhouse gases (GHGs) were, for the 

first time, covered by the PSD and title 

V operating permit programs.11 To 

establish a process for phasing in the 

permitting requirements for stationary 

sources of GHGs under the CAA PSD 

and title V programs, on June 3, 2010 

(75 FR 31514), the EPA published a 

final rule entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(hereinafter referred to as the GHG 

Tailoring Rule). In Step 1 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, which began on January 

2, 2011, the EPA limited application of 

PSD and title V requirements to sources 

of GHG emissions only if they were 

subject to PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due 

to their emissions of pollutants other 

than GHGs. These sources are referred 

to as ‘‘anyway sources.’’ 

In Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

which applied as of July 1, 2011, the 

PSD and title V permitting requirements 

applied to some sources that were 

classified as major sources based solely 

on their GHG emissions or potential to 

emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD 

permitting requirements to 

modifications of otherwise major 

sources that would increase only GHG 

emissions above the level in the EPA 

regulations. EPA generally described the 

sources covered by PSD during Step 2 

of the GHG Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2 

sources’’ or ‘‘GHG-only sources.’’ 

Subsequently, EPA published the 

GHG Step 3 Rule on July 12, 2012 (77 

FR 41051). In this rule, EPA decided 

against further phase-in of the PSD and 

title V requirements for sources emitting 

lower levels of GHG emissions. Thus, 

the thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability based on emissions of 

GHGs remained the same as established 

in Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule. 

In addition, the July 12, 2012 (77 FR 

41051), final rule revised EPA 

regulations under 40 CFR part 52 for 

establishing PALs for GHG emissions. A 

PAL establishes a site-specific 

plantwide emission level for a pollutant 

that allows the source to make changes 

at the facility without triggering the 

requirements of the PSD program, 

provided that emissions do not exceed 

the PAL level. Under EPA’s 

interpretation of the federal PAL 

provisions, such PALs are already 

available under PSD for non-GHG 

pollutants and for GHGs on a mass 

basis. EPA revised the PAL regulations 

to allow for GHG PALs to be established 

on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 12

basis as well. EPA finalized these 

changes in an effort to streamline 

federal and SIP PSD permitting 

programs by allowing sources and 

permitting authorities to address GHGs 

using PALs in a manner similar to the 

use of PALs for non-GHG pollutants. 

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme 

Court addressed the application of 

stationary source permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions in 

Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. 

EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The 

Supreme Court upheld EPA’s regulation 

of Step 1—or ‘‘anyway’’ sources—but 

held that EPA may not treat GHGs as air 

pollutants for the purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source (or a modification thereof) and 

thus require the source to obtain a PSD 

or title V permit. Therefore, the Court 

invalidated PSD and title V permitting 

requirements for Step 2 sources. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

D.C. Circuit issued an Amended 

Judgment vacating the regulations that 

implemented Step 2 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations 

that implement Step 1 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606 

Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015). With 

respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. 

Circuit’s Judgment vacated the EPA 

regulations under review (including 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(v)) ‘‘to the extent they 

require a stationary source to obtain a 

PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the 

only pollutant (i) that the source emits 

or has the potential to emit above the 

applicable major source thresholds, or 

(ii) for which there is a significant 

emissions increase from a 

modification.’’ Id. at 7–8. 

EPA promulgated a final rule on 

August 19, 2015, entitled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: 

Removal of Certain Vacated Elements.’’ 

See 80 FR 50199 (August 19, 2015). The 

rule removed from the Federal 

regulations the portions of the PSD 

permitting provisions for Step 2 sources 

that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit 

(i.e., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 

52.21(b)(49)(v)). EPA therefore no longer 

has the authority to conduct PSD 

permitting for Step 2 sources, nor can 

EPA approve provisions submitted by a 

state for inclusion in its SIP providing 

this authority. In addition, on October 3, 

2016 (81 FR 68110), EPA proposed to 

revise provisions in the PSD permitting 

regulations applicable to GHGs to fully 

conform with UARG and the Amended 

Judgment, but those revisions have not 

been finalized. 

In Tennessee’s March 7, 2017, and 

April 17, 2017, SIP submittals, Knox 

County adopts Step 1 of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule only. It does not adopt 

the language pertaining to the Step 2, 

nor Step 3. This is consistent with 

Tennessee’s rules which do not adopt 

Step 3 provisions and which include an 

automatic rescission clause that renders 

the Step 2 language ineffective at the 

state level due to the vacatur of Step 2 

by the D.C. Circuit. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28573 

13The reconsideration granted by EPA opened a 

new 60-day public comment period, and carried out 

a new public hearing, only on three issues of the 

ERP. These three issues included: (1) The basis for 

determining that the ERP was allowable under the 

CAA; (2) The basis for selecting the cost threshold 

(20 percent of the replacement cost of the process 

unit) that was used in the final rule to determine 

if a replacement was routine; and (3) A simplified 

procedure for incorporating a Federal 

Implementation Plan into State Plans to 

accommodate changes to the NSR rules. 

14New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 

2006). 

15Air quality design values for all criteria air 

pollutants are available at: https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/air-quality-design-values. 

E. Equipment Replacement Provisions 

Under Federal regulations, certain 

activities are not considered to be a 

physical change or a change in the 

method of operation at a source, and 

thus do not trigger NSR review. One 

category of such activities is routine 

maintenance, repair and replacement 

(RMRR). On October 27, 2003 (68 FR 

61248), EPA published a rule titled 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement 

Provision of the Routine Maintenance, 

Repair and Replacement Exclusion’’ 

(hereinafter referred to as the ERP Rule). 

The ERP Rule provided criteria for 

determining whether an activity falls 

within the RMRR exemption. The ERP 

Rule provided a list of equipment 

replacement activities that are exempt 

from NSR permitting requirements, 

while ensuring that industries maintain 

safe, reliable, and efficient operations 

that will have little or no impact on 

emissions. Under the ERP Rule, a 

facility undergoing equipment 

replacement would not be required to 

undergo NSR review if the facility 

replaced any component of a process 

unit with an identical or functionally 

equivalent component. The rule 

included several modifications to the 

NSR rules to explain what would 

qualify as an identical or functionally 

equivalent component. 

Shortly after the October 27, 2003, 

rulemaking, several parties filed 

petitions for review of the ERP Rule in 

the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit stayed 

the effective date of the rule pending 

resolution of the petitions. A collection 

of environmental groups, public interest 

groups, and States, subsequently filed a 

petition for reconsideration with EPA, 

requesting that the Agency reconsider 

certain aspects of the ERP Rule. EPA 

granted the petition for reconsideration 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40278).13 After 

the reconsideration, EPA published its 

final response on June 10, 2005 (70 FR 

33838), which stated that the Agency 

would not change any aspects of the 

ERP. On March 17, 2006, the D.C. 

Circuit acted on the petitions for review 

and vacated the ERP Rule.14 Knox 

County did not adopt the vacated 

language from the ERP Rule in 

Tennessee’s March 7, 2017, nor April 

17, 2017, SIP submittals. 

III. Analysis of State’s Submittal 

A. Tennessee’s March 7, 2017, NNSR 

and PSD Submittals 

Knox County currently has a SIPapproved NSR program for new and 

modified stationary sources, including 

preconstruction regulations for PSD 

found in Section 45.0—‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration,’’ and for 

NNSR found in Section 41.0— 

‘‘Regulations for the Review of New 

Sources.’’ Tennessee’s March 7, 2017, 

SIP revisions made changes to Section 

41.0 and Section 45.0 to address 

changes to the federal NSR regulations, 

as promulgated by EPA in the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, and subsequent changes 

in other relevant rulemakings as 

described in section II, above. 

As part of the changes to Section 41 

and Section 45, Knox County adopted 

all the necessary provisions of the 

federal NNSR rules (found in 40 CFR 

51.165) and the federal PSD rules (found 

in 40 CFR 51.166) to make them 

consistent with, and in some cases more 

stringent than, the federal rules. These 

changes included the adoption of 

several definitions in the federal PSD 

and NNSR rules, such as the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ as well as 

provisions regarding major NSR 

applicability procedures, actual-toprojected-actual applicability tests, 

PALs, and recordkeeping. Slight 

differences between the Knox County 

NSR rules and the federal rules are 

discussed below in Section III.A.1.—3. 

Additionally, in the changes included 

in the March 7, 2017, SIP submittal, 

Knox County adopted the provisions 

from the Ozone Phase 2 Rule, as 

discussed in section II.C of this 

rulemaking. Consistent with TDEC’s 

rules and the federal NNSR and PSD 

rules, Knox County adopted the same 

language regarding the Phase 2 rule 

found at 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 

51.166. This includes amendments 

found in the federal NNSR rules in 

§ 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1) through (3), 

(a)(1)(v)(E) and (F), (a)(1)(x), (a)(3)(ii)(C), 

and (a)(8) and (9), as well as the federal 

PSD rules in § 51.166(b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(ii), 

(b)(23)(i), and (b)(49)(i). 

EPA believes that the proposed 

approval of these changes, including all 

amendments mentioned in the 

following sections, will not have a 

negative impact on air quality in the 

County. 

First, with these proposed changes, 

the local Knox County regulations will 

now be consistent with the State’s 

current SIP-approved NSR program, 

which is slightly more stringent than the 

federal rules. Tennessee’s NSR program 

already underwent updates concerning 

the 2002 NSR reform on September 14, 

2007 (72 FR 52472). 

Second, Knox County currently does 

not have any nonattainment areas, and 

all previous nonattainment areas have 

been redesignated to attainment due to 

clean data. Table 1, below, shows the 

most recent air quality monitoring 

design values (DV), in micrograms per 

meter cubed (mg/m3) and parts per 

billion (ppb), and the most current 

corresponding NAAQS in each 

redesignated (i.e., maintenance) area in 

Knox County.15 This data shows that air 

quality in the Knox County area has 

been improving over the years, and most 

recently the entire county has been 

designated as attainment/unclassifiable 

for both the 2010 1-hour SO2 and 2015 

8-hour Ozone NAAQS as well. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT AIR QUALITY STATUS IN KNOX COUNTY FOR MAINTENANCE AREAS

Maintenance areas NAAQS for which 

area is maintenance Status Current NAAQS 2015–2017 design value 

Margin relative to 

current NAAQS with 

2014–2017 DV 

Knoxville ..................... 2008 ozone (75.0 

ppb).

Redesignated ............ 70 ppb ................ 68 ppb ....................... ¥2 ppb (3%) 

Knoxville ..................... 1997 annual PM2.5

(15.0 μg/m3).

Redesignated ............ 12.0 μg/m3 ......... 10 μg/m3 ................... ¥2 μg/m3 (17%) 

Knoxville ..................... 2006 24-hour PM2.5

(35 μg/m3).

Redesignated ............ 35 μg/m3 ............ 34 μg/m3 ................... ¥1 μg/m3 (3%) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28574 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

16The May 1, 2007, final rule finalized changes 

to the definition of ‘‘chemical process plants’’ as it 

applies to the federal PSD, NNSR and Title V 

programs, including applicability thresholds for 

PSD and the treatment of fugitive emissions in 

determining applicability for major NSR and title V. 

Finally, any projects (new 

construction or modifications) that 

would not be subject to major NSR 

would still be subject to preconstruction 

review and permitting requirements 

under Knox County’s SIP-approved 

minor NSR regulations found in Section 

25 of the Knox County Air Quality 

Management Regulations. Under the 

current SIP-approved minor NSR 

regulations, no construction or 

modification shall begin unless a 

construction permit has been issued by 

the Director of the Knox County Air 

Quality Management Division 

(Director), and no permit shall be issued 

unless the applicant can demonstrate 

that the source can be expected to 

comply with any applicable regulations, 

including the NAAQS. Furthermore, the 

Director may require additional and/or 

more restrictive permit conditions than 

required by the Knox County 

regulations, and the minor source 

construction permit can be invalidated 

if the source violates any applicable 

regulation. Therefore, these revisions 

should not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance or any other requirement 

of the CAA. 

Although in most cases Knox County 

adopted the federal rules as enacted at 

§§ 51.165 and 51.166, certain portions 

were modified or not adopted. These 

differences from the federal NNSR and 

PSD rules include: (1) Adopting a 

modified definition of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions,’’ more details of which are 

included in this Section; (2) not 

adopting the stayed language in the 

Fugitive Emission Rule; and (3) not 

adopting changes from a May 1, 2007, 

final rule regarding facilities that 

produce ethanol through natural 

fermentation.16 Additional differences 

from the federal NNSR rules in Section 

41 of Knox County’s regulations, 

particularly regarding the 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

are covered in Tennessee’s April 17, 

2017, SIP revision and are discussed 

below in section III.B of this 

rulemaking. 

1. Definition of ‘‘Baseline Actual 

Emissions’’ 

Regarding the definition of ‘‘baseline 

actual emissions,’’ as promulgated in 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) and 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(47), Knox County adopted 

into Section 41 and Section 45 of the 

Knox County Air Quality Management 

Regulations a definition mostly 

consistent with the federal definition. 

However, Knox County excluded a 

portion of the definition that would 

allow for different 24-month periods to 

be chosen for each regulated NSR 

pollutant when calculating baseline 

actual emissions for either PSD or NNSR 

applicability determinations. 

Knox County’s adoption of ‘‘baseline 

actual emissions’’ in Sections 41 and 45 

excludes the last sentence of 

§ 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv)(A)(3) and 

(a)(1)(xxxv)(B)(4) of the federal NNSR 

rules and § 51.166(b)(47)(i)(c) and 

(b)(47)(ii)(d) of the federal PSD rules, 

which states that ‘‘a different 

consecutive 24-month period can be 

used for each regulated NSR pollutant.’’ 

Instead, Knox County adopts specific 

language at Section 41.1.A.5(3) and 

Section 45.1.A.5.a(3) as follows: ‘‘For a 

regulated NSR pollutant, when a project 

involves multiple emissions units, only 

one consecutive 24-month period must 

be used to determine the baseline actual 

emissions for the emissions units being 

changed.’’ With this difference in the 

definition, Knox County is not allowing 

for different baseline periods to be 

chosen for a single project that involves 

multiple units, which removes an 

additional flexibility built into the 

federal rules and makes the local rules 

slightly more stringent than the federal 

rules. Knox County’s definition is 

consistent with TDEC’s SIP-approved 

definition of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions’’, which also does not allow 

for different pollutant-specific 24-month 

baseline periods. For the reasons 

discussed above, EPA is proposing to 

approve the changes to NNSR and PSD 

rules into the Knox County portion of 

the Tennessee SIP. 

EPA has determined that this 

difference in determining major NSR 

applicability with the definition of 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ is 

consistent with Tennessee’s SIPapproved rules and is more stringent 

than the current federal rules. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

changes to the definition, including this 

difference from the federal rules, into 

the Knox County portion of the 

Tennessee SIP. 

2. Fugitive Emissions Rule 

As mentioned in Section II.A of this 

rulemaking, a portion of the Fugitive 

Emissions Rule was stayed indefinitely 

on March 30, 2011. For this reason, 

Knox County did not adopt into Section 

41 or Section 45 of the Knox County Air 

Quality Management Regulations the 

language found in the federal NNSR 

rules at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(G) and 

(a)(1)(vi)(C)(3), as well as in the federal 

PSD rules at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(v) and 

(b)(3)(iii)(d), which are part of the 

stayed Fugitive Emissions Rule 

provisions that can still be found in the 

CFR. 

Given that the omitted language has 

been stayed indefinitely, EPA is 

proposing to approve the changes into 

the Knox County portion of the 

Tennessee SIP as consistent with federal 

requirements, and the Tennessee SIP. 

3. GHG Tailoring Rule 

As mentioned in Section II.D of this 

proposed rulemaking, Knox County 

adopted the provisions of the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, Step 1, but has not 

adopted Step 2 or Step 3. Consistent 

with Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

Knox County has adopted provisions in 

its PSD rules, found at Section 45 of the 

Knox County Air Quality Management 

Regulations, that require sources of GHG 

emissions to regulate GHGs only if they 

were subject to PSD ‘‘anyway’’ due to 

their emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs. These sources are referred to as 

‘‘anyway sources.’’ 

In Step 2 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, 

these PSD requirements for GHGs 

applied to some sources that were 

known as ‘‘GHG-only sources.’’ Since 

the D.C. Circuit vacated the GHG Step 

2 Rule on April 10, 2015, EPA has 

subsequently removed the provisions 

from this portion of the GHG Tailoring 

Rule from the Federal PSD rules. With 

respect to Step 2, Knox County’s rules 

are consistent with Tennessee’s rules. 

Although Tennessee currently has 

language related to Step 2 in its SIP, it 

also included an automatic rescission 

clause that renders any language 

pursuant to Step 2 ineffective at the 

state level due to the vacatur of Step 2 

by the D.C. Circuit. 

Finally, Knox County did not adopt 

the GHG Step 3 Rule, which, among 

other things, established PALs for GHG 

emissions on a CO2e basis. The GHG 

PALs regulations of the GHG Step 3 

Rule do not add new requirements for 

sources or modifications. Rather, the 

PALs provisions provide increased 

flexibility to sources that wish to 

address their GHG emissions in a PAL 

by using CO2e instead of a mass basis. 

Given that these provisions are not a 

requirement, but rather an optional way 

to address GHG PALs, EPA believes that 

not adopting the GHG Step 3 provisions 

into the Knox County portion of the 

Tennessee SIP is acceptable and will not 

interfere with Knox County’s ability to 

meet all applicable GHG requirements. 

In addition, Knox County is being 

consistent with Tennessee’s rules, 

which do not include the GHG Step 3 

provisions. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28575 

17 Knox County did not adopt the vacated 

elements of the PM2.5 PSD-Increment-SILs-SMC 

Rule. However, Knox County adopted the 

remaining elements of the NSR PM2.5 Rule, while 

incorporating the requirements pursuant to Subpart 

4 of Part D of the CAA, as prescribed following the 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 litigation, and the correction to 

requirements promulgated in the PM2.5

Condensables Correction Rule. For more details, see 

Section II.B of this rulemaking. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve the Step 1 

provisions of the GHG Tailoring Rule 

into the Knox County portion of the 

Tennessee SIP, as presented in the 

March 7, 2017 SIP submittal. 

B. Tennessee’s April 17, 2017, NNSR 

Changes 

The April 17, 2017, SIP revision 

included two changes to the Knox 

County portion of the Tennessee SIP, 

one making additional changes to 

Section 41, and another updating 

Section 25.0 entitled ‘‘Permits’’ 

(hereinafter referred to as Section 25). 

The revisions to Section 41 include 

additional changes which are meant to 

be incorporated with the March 7, 2017, 

revisions of this section. 

Although the March 7, 2017, SIP 

revision updates Knox County’s NNSR 

regulation found in Section 41, it does 

not include some provisions that were 

part of the NSR PM2.5 Rule, or 

corrections related to the PM2.5 subpart 

4 litigation, as described in section II.B, 

above.17 The April 17, 2017, SIP 

revision adds the following elements: 1) 

Under Section 41.1–A.36.a, Knox 

County adds emissions thresholds (in 

tons per year) for PM2.5 and its 

precursors, for sources to be considered 

a ‘‘major stationary source’’ in any area 

designated as a serious PM2.5

nonattainment area; 2) Under Section 

41.1–A.56.a(7), Knox County adds 

emissions increase thresholds under 

PM2.5, for volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and Ammonia (presumptively 

regulating both as precursors to PM2.5), 

for an emissions increase to be 

considered ‘‘significant;’’ and 3) Under 

Section 41.3–A, Knox County adds a 

sentence clarifying the applicability of 

NSR in nonattainment areas and adds 

references to the new definitions of 

Section 41.1–A.52. 

As part of the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

litigation mentioned in Section II.B, 

above, EPA published its June 2, 2014, 

final rule re-promulgating the NSR 

PM2.5 implementation rule and set a 

deadline of December 31, 2014, for 

states to make any remaining required 

attainment-related and NNSR SIP 

submissions, pursuant to and 

considering the application of subpart 4. 

At the time of the June 2, 2014, final 

rulemaking, the Knoxville Area was 

designated nonattainment for both the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, under subpart 1. 

Knox County did not meet the 

December 31, 2014, deadline to submit 

its attainment and NNSR SIP 

submissions pursuant to subpart 4. 

However, on December 20, 2016, Knox 

County, through Tennessee, submitted 

maintenance plans and redesignation 

requests to EPA regarding both 

standards, pursuant to subpart 1 and 

subpart 4 of Part D of the CAA. Included 

in the request were reasonably available 

control measure (RACM) determinations 

as well as motor vehicle emission 

budgets for NOX and PM2.5 for the years 

2014 and 2008. Since then, the area has 

been redesignated to attainment for both 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Specifically, the Knoxville Area was 

redesignated to attainment on August 

28, 2017, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and on August 29, 2017, for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Additionally, as mentioned above, the 

April 17, 2017, SIP revision adds 

emissions thresholds (in tons per year) 

for PM2.5 and its precursors for sources 

to be considered a ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ in any area designated as a 

serious PM2.5 nonattainment area, as 

well as emissions increase thresholds 

under PM2.5, for VOC and Ammonia 

(presumptively regulating both as 

precursors to PM2.5), for an emissions 

increase to be considered ‘‘significant.’’ 

Although Knox County currently has no 

NAAs for PM2.5, and has no major 

stationary sources of ammonia, it still 

included thresholds for regulating 

ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5 and 

provided a technical justification for 

what it considers ‘‘significant’’ in terms 

of emissions of ammonia. 

As explained in the technical 

justification, which can be found in the 

docket for this proposed action, Knox 

County opted to set the emissions 

threshold at that of the other PM2.5

precursors (NOX, SO2, and VOC) set in 

federal requirements, and therefore set it 

at 40 tons per year. According to Knox 

County, this is a conservative approach 

since the area currently has no major 

stationary sources of ammonia. EPA 

agrees with this determination and 

believes that the 40 ton per year 

threshold will be sufficient to determine 

a significant emissions increase. EPA 

also agrees that this is a conservative 

approach because, based on the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(x)(F), Knox County was not 

required to establish a definition of 

‘‘significant’’ for ammonia given that 

they currently have no nonattainment 

areas for PM2.5 and have no major 

stationary sources of ammonia in the 

county. As previously mentioned, Knox 

County does not have any existing major 

stationary sources of ammonia, and does 

not currently have any PM2.5 NAAs. 

Nevertheless, if Knox County were to 

begin operation of a major stationary 

source of ammonia, they would have a 

reasonable threshold for determining 

major modifications of ammonia for any 

future PM2.5 NAAs. 

These changes to Knox County’s 

Section 41, together with the changes 

mentioned above in section III.A., make 

Knox County’s NNSR regulations 

consistent with the federal requirements 

(and in some cases more stringent, as is 

the case of the definition of ‘‘baseline 

actual emissions’’), and also consistent 

with TDEC’s NNSR rules. With the 

exception of the vacated or stayed 

portions, as mentioned in section II, 

Knox County has adopted all other 

necessary provisions of the federal 

NNSR rules, including those 

promulgated by the NSR reform rules 

and the NSR PM2.5 Rule. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to approve the 

aforementioned changes to the Knox 

County portion of the Tennessee SIP. 

C. Tennessee’s April 17, 2017, Minor 

Source Permit Changes 

As mentioned above, on April 17, 

2017, Tennessee submitted, on behalf of 

Knox County, two additional SIP 

revisions to update Knox County’s Air 

Quality Management Regulations, 

Section 41.0 and Section 25.0. As part 

of the revisions to Section 25, Knox 

County included changes to Sections 

25.1—‘‘Construction Permits,’’ 25.3— 

‘‘Operating Permits,’’ and 25.9—‘‘Minor 

Source and Synthetic Minor Source 

Emission Fees’’ (hereinafter referred to 

as Section 25.1, Section 25.3 and 

Section 25.9, respectively). 

In Section 25.1, Knox County added 

two paragraphs, 25.1.F and 25.1.G, in 

order to provide more detail on the 

necessity of a construction permit, and 

revised paragraph 25.1.C in order to 

clarify the duration of validity and 

expiration of a construction permit if 

construction is not commenced within a 

certain timeframe or is interrupted for a 

certain timeframe. Paragraph 25.1.F 

establishes that construction of a new 

source, or modification of an existing 

source, must be in accordance with the 

construction permit and all applicable 

Knox County Air Quality Management 

Regulations. Paragraph 25.1.G 

establishes that a construction permit 

may be issued to a source that has 

already been constructed in order to 

assure that all regulatory requirements 

are met and asserts that no operating 

permit will be issued until the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

construction permit requirements are 

met. 

In the current SIP-approved version of 

paragraph 25.1.C, Knox County sets a 

duration of 1 year for a construction 

permit, which has to be renewed 

annually. With the changes in the April 

17, 2017, SIP revision, Knox County 

establishes that a construction permit 

will be invalidated if construction is not 

commenced within 18 months, if it is 

discontinued for more than 18 months, 

or if the construction is not completed 

within a reasonable timeframe. 

Nevertheless, the revisions establish 

that a permit may be extended by the 

Director, if such an extension is shown 

to be justified. The revision to the 

applicable timeframe of minor source 

construction permits is consistent with 

those required for major NSR under the 

current SIP-approved version of both 

the Tennessee SIP and the Knox County 

portion of the Tennessee SIP. 

In section 25.3, Knox County revised 

paragraphs 25.3.A and 25.3.C, providing 

timeframes for applying and issuing 

operating permits, and added two new 

paragraphs, 25.3.M and 25.3.N, which 

include additional requirements and 

clarifications for operating permits and 

stack sampling reports. Under the 

current SIP-approved version of 

paragraph 25.3.A, Knox County simply 

establishes the requirement that a 

person planning to operate a new or 

modified source, must ‘‘apply for and 

receive’’ an operating permit. With the 

changes in the April 17, 2017, SIP 

revision, Knox County included an 

additional requirement which, provided 

that paragraph 25.3.C is complied with, 

requires the operating permit to be 

obtained within 90 days after the initial 

start-up of a source or modification. 

Additionally, if stack sampling is 

required for the application, this time 

period may be extended to 60 days after 

the stack sampling report is required to 

be submitted. 

Under current SIP-approved version 

of paragraph 25.3.C, Knox County 

establishes a timeframe for ‘‘applying’’ 

for an operating permit only when 

renewing an existing permit. The 

paragraph only sets a required 

timeframe of 30 days prior to the 

expiration of an existing operating 

permit. But with the changes in the 

April 17, 2017, SIP revision, Knox 

County included two additional 

conditions: (1) When applying for a new 

operating permit, the applicant must 

submit the application no later than 14 

days after initial start-up; and (2) When 

stack sampling is required as part of a 

construction permit, the time period for 

applying for the operating permit is 

extended to the time specified in the 

construction permit as the date that the 

sampling reports are required to be 

submitted. 

In the two paragraphs that Knox 

County added to this section, 25.3.M 

and 25.3.N, the local agency has added 

additional clarification on operating 

permits. In Paragraph 25.3.M, Knox 

County included a requirement that no 

source can operate without an operating 

permit, but reiterates that a new source 

or modification may operate with a 

construction permit for a limited period 

of time, in order to provide the source 

an opportunity to apply for and obtain 

a new operating permit. The conditions 

and time limits for operating with a 

construction permit are established in 

paragraph 25.3.A. In paragraph 25.3.N, 

Knox County clarifies that any stack 

sampling reports that were required as 

part of a construction permit, must be 

part of the operating permit application 

for that source, and that any stack 

sampling required as part of an existing 

operating permit, must be part of the 

renewal application of the operating 

permit. These changes to Sections 25.1 

and 25.3 are meant to establish 

reasonable timeframes for the validity of 

construction permits and to provide 

clarification for sources applying for 

and obtaining operating permits. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

aforementioned changes into the Knox 

County portion of the Tennessee SIP. 

The federal requirements for state minor 

NSR programs, outlined in 40 CFR 

51.160 through 51.164, are considerably 

less prescriptive than those for major 

sources to facilitate the development of 

programs that best reflect a state’s 

chosen approach to achieving 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. As such, states may customize 

their minor NSR programs as long as 

they meet the minimum requirements, 

as Knox County is here. 

Finally, in Section 25.9, Knox County 

removed the language in paragraphs 

25.9.F.8 through 25.9.F.10, and 

substitutes it with ‘‘Reserved.’’ The 

removed language simply established 

several permit fees that expired on 

December 31, 2016, which a source, 

operator, or owner had to pay to the 

Department of Air Quality Management 

of Knox County. Given that these permit 

fees have since expired, EPA agrees 

with Knox County’s decision to remove 

these paragraphs. Moreover, permit fees 

need not be included explicitly in the 

SIP. EPA is therefore proposing to 

approve the removal of this language 

from the Knox County portion of the 

Tennessee SIP. 

F. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Knox County’s Air Quality Management 

Regulations, Section 25.0—‘‘Permits,’’ 

state effective January 18, 2017, Section 

41.0—‘‘Regulations for the Review of 

New Sources,’’ state effective January 

18, 2017, and Section 45.0—‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration,’’ state 

effective July 20, 2016. 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). 

G. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

aforementioned changes to the Knox 

County portion of the Tennessee SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

changes presented in the March 7, 2017, 

and April 17, 2017, SIP submittals that 

make changes to Knox County’s Air 

Quality Management Regulations, 

Section 41.0 entitled ‘‘Regulations for 

the Review of New Sources,’’ Section 

45.0 entitled ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration,’’ and Section 25.0 entitled 

‘‘Permits.’’ These SIP revisions are 

meant to address several changes to the 

federal NSR regulations, as promulgated 

by EPA on December 31, 2002, and 

reconsidered with minor changes on 

November 7, 2003, which are commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform 

Rules,’’ as well as subsequent changes to 

the federal NSR regulations as described 

in Section II of this proposed 

rulemaking. Finally, these revisions are 

meant to make Knox County’s NSR 

regulations consistent with those of the 

State of Tennessee. 

H. 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: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28577 

1The major NSR program, established in parts C 

and D of title I of the CAA and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 

40 CFR 52.21, is a preconstruction review and 

permitting program applicable to new major 

stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants and 

major modifications at existing major stationary 

sources. A major modification is defined as any 

physical change in or change in the method of 

operation of a major stationary source that would 

result in a significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant and a significant net 

emissions increase of that pollutant from the major 

stationary source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 

51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i). 

2EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 

CFR 51.160–.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, 

Appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed 

of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor 

NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is 

insufficient information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ 

The Minor NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not qualify as 

‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation 

of the area in which a source is located. Together, 

these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. 

• 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. 

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13144 Filed 6–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0050; FRL–9979– 

66—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to 

New Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise 

New Source Review (NSR) regulations. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the portions of a SIP revision 

submitted by the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC), 

on May 28, 2009, that modify the 

definitions of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions.’’ This action is being 

proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0050, 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: D. 

Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be 

reached via telephone at (404) 562–9089 

or via electronic mail at akers.brad@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA for approval that 

contains changes to Tennessee’s SIPapproved major NSR permitting 

regulations at Tennessee Air Pollution 

Control Regulations (TAPCR) 1200–3– 

9–.01—‘‘Construction Permits,’’ 

including the adoption of federal 

requirements and the modification of 

certain other provisions.1 In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of this SIP submission that 

make changes to the definitions of 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

Tennessee’s SIP-approved Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) regulations at TAPCR 1200–3– 

9–.01(4)—‘‘Prevention of Significant Air 

Quality Deterioration’’ and 1200–3–9– 

.01(5)(b)—‘‘Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

respectively.2 Tennessee’s NSR 

regulations at TAPCR 1200–3–9–-.01 

were last revised in the SIP on July 25, 

2013 (78 FR 44886). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS