Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30609 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

comments to this proposed rule by 

following the instructions listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

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). 

In addition, 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 22, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14068 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0626; FRL–9980–18– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Attainment Plan for Sullivan County 

SO2 Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC), to EPA on May 

12, 2017, for attaining the 2010 1-hour 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for the Sullivan County SO2

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Sullivan County Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). The Sullivan County Area is 

comprised of a portion of Sullivan 

County in Tennessee surrounding the 

Eastman Chemical Company (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Eastman’’). This plan 

(herein called a ‘‘nonattainment plan or 

SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment plan or SIP’’) 

includes Tennessee’s attainment 

demonstration and other elements 

required under the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). In addition to an attainment 

demonstration, the plan addresses the 

requirement for meeting reasonable 

further progress (RFP) toward 

attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably 

available control measures and 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACM/RACT), base-year and 

projection-year emissions inventories, 

enforceable emissions limitations and 

control measures, and contingency 

measures. EPA proposes to conclude 

that Tennessee has appropriately 

demonstrated that the plan’s provisions 

provide for attainment of the 2010 1- 

hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the 

Sullivan County Area and that the plan 

meets the other applicable requirements 

under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0626 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. Requirement for Tennessee to Submit an 

SO2 Attainment Plan for the Sullivan 

County Area 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30610 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

II. Requirements for SO2 Attainment Plans 

III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer 

Term Averaging 

IV. Review of Attainment Plan Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

B. Attainment Modeling Demonstration 

1. Model Selection 

2. Meteorological Data 

3. Emissions Data 

4. Emission Limits 

i. Enforceability 

ii. Longer Term Average Limits 

5. Background Concentration 

6. Analysis of Multi-Stack Limit 

7. Summary of Modeling Results 

C. RACM/RACT 

D. New Source Review (NSR) 

E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

F. Contingency Measures 

V. Additional Elements of Tennessee’s 

Submittal 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

I. Requirement for Tennessee To 

Submit an SO2 Attainment Plan for the 

Sullivan County Area 

On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a 

new 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS of 75 

parts per billion (ppb), which is met at 

an ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of daily maximum 1- 

hour average concentrations does not 

exceed 75 ppb, as determined in 

accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR 

part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 

CFR 50.17(a)–(b). On August 5, 2013, 

EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of 

the country as nonattainment for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191, 

codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C. 

These designations included the 

Sullivan County Area, which 

encompasses the primary SO2 emitting 

source Eastman and the nearby SO2

monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 47–163– 

0007). These area designations were 

effective October 4, 2013. Section 191(a) 

of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs 

for areas designated as nonattainment 

for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within 18 

months of the effective date of the 

designation, i.e., by no later than April 

4, 2015 in this case. Under CAA section 

192(a) these SIPs are required to 

demonstrate that their respective areas 

will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than 5 years 

from the effective date of designation, 

which is October 4, 2018. In addition, 

sections 110(a) and 172(c), as well as 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51, set 

forth substantive elements each SIP 

must contain to be approved by EPA. 

For the Sullivan County Area (and 

many other areas), EPA published a 

notice on March 18, 2016, that 

Tennessee (and other pertinent states) 

had failed to submit the required SO2

nonattainment plan by this submittal 

deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding 

initiated a deadline under CAA section 

179(a) for the potential imposition of 

new source review and highway 

funding sanctions. However, pursuant 

to Tennessee’s submittal of May 12, 

2017, and EPA’s subsequent letter dated 

October 10, 2017, to Tennessee finding 

the submittal complete and noting the 

termination of these sanctions 

deadlines, these sanctions under section 

179(a) will not be imposed as a result 

of Tennessee having missed the April 4, 

2015 deadline. Under CAA section 

110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding also 

triggered a requirement that EPA 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) within two years of the 

finding unless (a) the state has made the 

necessary complete submittal and (b) 

EPA has approved the submittal as 

meeting applicable requirements. 

II. Requirements for SO2 Attainment 

Plans 

To be approved by EPA, 

nonattainment areas must provide SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 

110(a), 172, 191 and 192 for SO2. EPA’s 

regulations governing nonattainment 

SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with 

specific procedural requirements and 

control strategy requirements residing at 

subparts F and G, respectively. Soon 

after Congress enacted the 1990 

Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued 

comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a 

document entitled the ‘‘General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ published at 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). 

Among other things, the General 

Preamble addressed SO2 SIPs and 

fundamental principles for SIP control 

strategies. Id., at 13545–49, 13567–68. 

On April 23, 2014, EPA issued 

recommended guidance for meeting the 

statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs 

under the 2010 revised NAAQS, in a 

document entitled, ‘‘Guidance for 1- 

Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 

Submissions,’’ available at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_

nonattainment_sip.pdf (hereafter 

referred to as EPA’s April 2014 SO2

guidance or guidance). In this guidance 

EPA described the statutory 

requirements for SO2 SIPs for 

nonattainment areas, which includes: 

An accurate emissions inventory of 

current emissions for all sources of SO2

within the nonattainment area; an 

attainment demonstration; 

demonstration of RFP; implementation 

of RACM (including RACT); new source 

review (NSR); enforceable emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

adequate contingency measures for the 

affected area. 

For EPA to fully approve a SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 110, 172 and 191–192, and 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the 

SIP for the affected area needs to 

demonstrate to EPA’s satisfaction that 

each of the aforementioned 

requirements have been met. Under 

CAA sections 110(l) and 193, EPA may 

not approve a SIP that would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning NAAQS attainment and 

RFP, or any other applicable 

requirement, and no requirement in 

effect (or required to be adopted by an 

order, settlement, agreement, or plan in 

effect before November 15, 1990) in any 

area which is a nonattainment area for 

any air pollutant, may be modified in 

any manner unless it insures equivalent 

or greater emission reductions of such 

air pollutant. 

III. Attainment Demonstration and 

Longer Term Averaging 

CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) direct 

states with areas designated as 

nonattainment to demonstrate that the 

submitted plan provides for attainment 

of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

G further delineates the control strategy 

requirements that SIPs must meet, and 

EPA has long required that all SIPs and 

control strategies reflect four 

fundamental principles of 

quantification, enforceability, 

replicability, and accountability. 

General Preamble, at 13567–68. SO2

attainment plans must consist of two 

components: (1) Emission limits and 

other control measures that assure 

implementation of permanent, 

enforceable and necessary emission 

controls, and (2) a modeling analysis 

which meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix W which 

demonstrates that these emission limits 

and control measures provide for timely 

attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS 

as expeditiously as practicable, but by 

no later than the attainment date for the 

affected area. In all cases, the emission 

limits and control measures must be 

accompanied by appropriate methods 

and conditions to determine compliance 

with the respective emission limits and 

control measures and must be 

quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of 

emission reduction can be ascribed to 

the measures), fully-enforceable 

(specifying clear, unambiguous and 

measurable requirements for which 

compliance can be practicably 

determined), replicable (the procedures 

for determining compliance are 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30611 

1An ‘‘average year’’ is used to mean a year with 

average air quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T 

provides for averaging three years of 99th percentile 

daily maximum hourly values (e.g., the fourth 

highest maximum daily hourly concentration in a 

year with 365 days with valid data), this discussion 

and an example below uses a single ‘‘average year’’ 

to simplify the illustration of relevant principles. 

sufficiently specific and non-subjective 

so that two independent entities 

applying the procedures would obtain 

the same result), and accountable 

(source specific limits must be 

permanent and must reflect the 

assumptions used in the SIP 

demonstrations). 

EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance 

recommends that the emission limits be 

expressed as short-term average limits 

(e.g., addressing emissions averaged 

over one or three hours), but also 

describes the option to utilize emission 

limits with longer averaging times of up 

to 30 days so long as the state meets 

various suggested criteria. See EPA’s 

April 2014 SO2 guidance, pp. 22 to 39. 

The guidance recommends that—should 

states and sources utilize longer 

averaging times—the longer term 

average limit should be set at an 

adjusted level that reflects a stringency 

comparable to the 1-hour average limit 

at the critical emission value (CEV) 

shown by modeling to provide for 

attainment that the plan otherwise 

would have set. 

EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance 

provides an extensive discussion of 

EPA’s rationale for concluding that 

appropriately set comparably stringent 

limitations based on averaging times as 

long as 30 days can be found to provide 

for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

In evaluating this option, EPA 

considered the nature of the standard, 

conducted detailed analyses of the 

impact of use of 30-day average limits 

on the prospects for attaining the 

standard, and carefully reviewed how 

best to achieve an appropriate balance 

among the various factors that warrant 

consideration in judging whether a 

state’s plan provides for attainment. Id. 

at pp. 22 to 39. See also id. at 

Appendices B, C, and D. 

As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 

1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS is met at an 

ambient air quality monitoring site 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of daily maximum 1- 

hour average concentrations is less than 

or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 

days of valid monitoring data, the 99th 

percentile would be the fourth highest 

daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, including this form of 

determining compliance with the 

standard, was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in Nat’l Envt’l Dev. Ass’n’s Clean 

Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 803 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this 

form, a single hourly exceedance of the 

75-ppb level does not create a violation 

of the standard. Instead, at issue is 

whether a source operating in 

compliance with a properly set longer 

term average could cause hourly 

exceedances of the NAAQS level, and if 

so the resulting frequency and 

magnitude of such exceedances, and in 

particular whether EPA can have 

reasonable confidence that a properly 

set longer term average limit will 

provide that the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth highest daily maximum 1- 

hour value will be at or below 75 ppb. 

A synopsis of how EPA judges whether 

such plans ‘‘provide for attainment,’’ 

based on modeling of projected 

allowable emissions and in light of the 

NAAQS’s form for determining 

attainment at monitoring sites, follows. 

For SO2 plans that are based on 1- 

hour emission limits, the standard 

approach is to conduct modeling using 

fixed emission rates. The maximum 

emission rate that would be modeled to 

result in attainment (i.e., in an ‘‘average 

year’’ 1 shows three, not four days with 

maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 

ppb) is labeled the ‘‘critical emission 

value.’’ The modeling process for 

identifying this critical emissions value 

inherently considers the numerous 

variables that affect ambient 

concentrations of SO2, such as 

meteorological data, background 

concentrations, and topography. In the 

standard approach, the state would then 

provide for attainment by setting a 

continuously applicable 1-hour 

emission limit at this critical emission 

value. 

EPA recognizes that some sources 

have highly variable emissions, for 

example due to variations in fuel sulfur 

content and operating rate, that can 

make it extremely difficult, even with a 

well-designed control strategy, to ensure 

in practice that emissions for any given 

hour do not exceed the critical emission 

value. EPA also acknowledges the 

concern that longer term emission limits 

can allow short periods with emissions 

above the ‘‘critical emissions value,’’ 

which, if coincident with 

meteorological conditions conducive to 

high SO2 concentrations, could in turn 

create the possibility of a NAAQS 

exceedance occurring on a day when an 

exceedance would not have occurred if 

emissions were continuously controlled 

at the level corresponding to the critical 

emission value. However, for several 

reasons, EPA believes that the approach 

recommended in its guidance document 

suitably addresses this concern. First, 

from a practical perspective, EPA 

expects the actual emission profile of a 

source subject to an appropriately set 

longer term average limit to be similar 

to the emission profile of a source 

subject to an analogous 1-hour average 

limit. EPA expects this similarity 

because it has recommended that the 

longer term average limit be set at a 

level that is comparably stringent to the 

otherwise applicable 1-hour limit 

(reflecting a downward adjustment from 

the critical emissions value) and that 

takes the source’s emissions profile into 

account. As a result, EPA expects either 

form of emission limit to yield 

comparable air quality. 

Second, from a more theoretical 

perspective, EPA has compared the 

likely air quality with a source having 

maximum allowable emissions under an 

appropriately set longer term limit, as 

compared to the likely air quality with 

the source having maximum allowable 

emissions under the comparable 1-hour 

limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour 

average limit scenario, the source is 

presumed at all times to emit at the 

critical emission level, and in the longer 

term average limit scenario the source is 

presumed to occasionally emit more 

than the critical emission value but on 

average, and presumably at most times, 

to emit well below the critical emission 

value. In an ‘‘average year,’’ compliance 

with the 1-hour limit is expected to 

result in three exceedance days (i.e., 

three days with hourly values above 75 

ppb) and a fourth day with a maximum 

hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, 

with the source complying with a longer 

term limit, it is possible that additional 

exceedances would occur that would 

not occur in the 1-hour limit scenario (if 

emissions exceed the critical emission 

value at times when meteorology is 

conducive to poor air quality). However, 

this comparison must also factor in the 

likelihood that exceedances that would 

be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario 

would not occur in the longer term limit 

scenario. This result arises because the 

longer term limit requires lower 

emissions most of the time (because the 

limit is set well below the critical 

emission value), so a source complying 

with an appropriately set longer term 

limit is likely to have lower emissions 

at critical times than would be the case 

if the source were emitting as allowed 

with a 1-hour limit. 

As a hypothetical example to 

illustrate these points, suppose a source 

that always emits 1,000 pounds of SO2

per hour, which results in air quality at 

the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in 

a design value of 75 ppb). Suppose 

further that in an ‘‘average year,’’ these 

emissions cause the 5-highest maximum 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30612 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2For example, if the critical emission value is 

1,000 pounds of SO2 per hour, and a suitable 

adjustment factor is determined to be 70 percent, 

the recommended longer term average limit would 

be 700 lbs/hr. 

daily average 1-hour concentrations to 

be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 

70 ppb. Then suppose that the source 

becomes subject to a 30-day average 

emission limit of 700 pounds per hour 

(lbs/hr). It is theoretically possible for a 

source meeting this limit to have 

emissions that occasionally exceed 

1,000 pounds per hour, but with a 

typical emissions profile, emissions 

would much more commonly be 

between 600 and 800 lbs/hr. In this 

simplified example, assume a zerobackground concentration, which 

allows one to assume a linear 

relationship between emissions and air 

quality. (A nonzero background 

concentration would make the 

mathematics more difficult but would 

give similar results.) Air quality will 

depend on what emissions happen on 

what critical hours, but suppose that 

emissions at the relevant times on these 

5 days are 800 lbs/hr, 1,100 lbs/hr, 500 

lbs/hr, 900 lbs/hr, and 1,200 lbs/hr, 

respectively. (This is a conservative 

example because the average of these 

emissions, 900 lbs/hr, is well over the 

30-day average emission limit.) These 

emissions would result in daily 

maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 

ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 ppb, and 84 

ppb. In this example, the fifth day 

would have an exceedance that would 

not otherwise have occurred, but the 

third and fourth days would not have 

exceedances that otherwise would have 

occurred. In this example, the fourth 

highest maximum daily concentration 

under the 30-day average would be 67.5 

ppb. 

This simplified example illustrates 

the findings of a more complicated 

statistical analysis that EPA conducted 

using a range of scenarios using actual 

plant data. As described in Appendix B 

of EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance, EPA 

found that the requirement for lower 

average emissions is highly likely to 

yield better air quality than is required 

with a comparably stringent 1-hour 

limit. Based on analyses described in 

appendix B of its 2014 guidance, EPA 

expects that an emission profile with 

maximum allowable emissions under an 

appropriately set comparably stringent 

30-day average limit is likely to have the 

net effect of having a lower number of 

exceedances and better air quality than 

an emission profile with maximum 

allowable emissions under a 1-hour 

emission limit at the critical emission 

value. This result provides a compelling 

policy rationale for allowing the use of 

a longer averaging period, in 

appropriate circumstances where the 

facts indicate this result can be expected 

to occur. 

The question then becomes whether 

this approach—which is likely to 

produce a lower number of overall 

exceedances even though it may 

produce some unexpected exceedances 

above the critical emission value— 

meets the requirements in sections 

110(a)(1) and (2), 172(c)(1) and (6) for 

SIPs to contain enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures 

to ‘‘provide for attainment’’ of the 

NAAQS. For SO2, as for other 

pollutants, it is generally impossible to 

design a nonattainment plan in the 

present that will guarantee that 

attainment will occur in the future. A 

variety of factors can cause a welldesigned attainment plan to fail and 

unexpectedly not result in attainment, 

for example if meteorology occurs that 

is more conducive to poor air quality 

than was anticipated in the plan. 

Therefore, in determining whether a 

plan meets the requirement to provide 

for attainment, EPA’s task is commonly 

to judge not whether the plan provides 

absolute certainty that attainment will 

in fact occur, but rather whether the 

plan provides an adequate level of 

confidence of prospective NAAQS 

attainment. From this perspective, in 

evaluating use of a 30-day average limit, 

EPA must weigh the likely net effect on 

air quality. Such an evaluation must 

consider the risk that occasions with 

meteorology conducive to high 

concentrations will have elevated 

emissions leading to exceedances that 

would not otherwise have occurred, and 

must also weigh the likelihood that the 

requirement for lower emissions on 

average will result in days not having 

exceedances that would have been 

expected with emissions at the critical 

emissions value. Additional policy 

considerations, such as in this case the 

desirability of accommodating real 

world emissions variability without 

significant risk of violations, are also 

appropriate factors for EPA to weigh in 

judging whether a plan provides a 

reasonable degree of confidence that the 

plan will lead to attainment. Based on 

these considerations, especially given 

the high likelihood that a continuously 

enforceable limit averaged over as long 

as 30 days, determined in accordance 

with EPA’s guidance, will result in 

attainment, EPA believes as a general 

matter that such limits, if appropriately 

determined, can reasonably be 

considered to provide for attainment of 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

The April 2014 SO2 guidance offers 

specific recommendations for 

determining an appropriate longer term 

average limit. The recommended 

method starts with determination of the 

1-hour emission limit that would 

provide for attainment (i.e., the critical 

emission value), and applies an 

adjustment factor to determine the 

(lower) level of the longer term average 

emission limit that would be estimated 

to have a degree of stringency 

comparable to the otherwise necessary 

1-hour emission limit. This method uses 

a database of continuous emission data 

reflecting the type of control that the 

source will be using to comply with the 

SIP emission limits, which (if 

compliance requires new controls) may 

require use of an emission database 

from another source. The recommended 

method involves using these data to 

compute a complete set of emission 

averages, computed according to the 

averaging time and averaging 

procedures of the prospective emission 

limitation. In this recommended 

method, the ratio of the 99th percentile 

among these long term averages to the 

99th percentile of the 1-hour values 

represents an adjustment factor that may 

be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour 

emission limit to determine a longer 

term average emission limit that may be 

considered comparably stringent.2 The 

guidance also addresses a variety of 

related topics, such as the potential 

utility of setting supplemental emission 

limits, such as mass-based limits, to 

reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude 

of elevated emission levels that might 

occur under the longer term emission 

rate limit. 

Preferred air quality models for use in 

regulatory applications are described in 

Appendix A of EPA’s Guideline on Air 

Quality Models (40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W). In 2005, EPA promulgated 

AERMOD as the Agency’s preferred 

near-field dispersion modeling for a 

wide range of regulatory applications 

addressing stationary sources (for 

example in estimating SO2

concentrations) in all types of terrain 

based on extensive developmental and 

performance evaluation. Supplemental 

guidance on modeling for purposes of 

demonstrating attainment of the SO2

NAAQS is provided in appendix A to 

the April 2014 SO2 guidance document 

referenced above. Appendix A provides 

extensive guidance on the modeling 

domain, the source inputs, assorted 

types of meteorological data, and 

background concentrations. Consistency 

with the recommendations in this 

guidance is generally necessary for the 

attainment demonstration to offer 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30613 

3As mentioned elsewhere in this proposed 

action, four boilers have converted to exclusive use 

of natural gas for fuel combustion already. These 

repowered units have different heat capacities, and 

the fuel content is such that the actual emissions 

of SO2 will always be much less than the formerly 

permitted rate. 

4As detailed in Section IV. of this proposed 

action, CEMS will be installed for Powerhouse B– 

83. Therefore, all subsequent emissions inventories 

and all compliance assessments will be based on 

CEMS measurements. 

adequately reliable assurance that the 

plan provides for attainment. 

As stated previously, attainment 

demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour 

primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate 

future attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS in the entire area 

designated as nonattainment (i.e., not 

just at the violating monitor) by using 

air quality dispersion modeling (see 

appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show 

that the mix of sources and enforceable 

control measures and emission rates in 

an identified area will not lead to a 

violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For a 

short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA 

believes that dispersion modeling, using 

allowable emissions and addressing 

stationary sources in the affected area 

(and in some cases sources located 

outside the nonattainment area which 

may affect attainment in the area) is 

technically appropriate, efficient and 

effective in demonstrating attainment in 

nonattainment areas because it takes 

into consideration combinations of 

meteorological and emission source 

operating conditions that may 

contribute to peak ground-level 

concentrations of SO2. 

The meteorological data used in the 

analysis should generally be processed 

with the most recent version of 

AERMET. Estimated concentrations 

should include ambient background 

concentrations, should follow the form 

of the NAAQS, and should be calculated 

as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the 

August 23, 2010 clarification memo on 

‘‘Applicability of appendix W Modeling 

Guidance for the 1-hr SO2 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ (U.S. 

EPA, 2010a). 

IV. Review of Attainment Plan 

Requirements 

A. Emissions Inventory 

The emissions inventory and source 

emission rate data for an area serve as 

the foundation for air quality modeling 

and other analyses that enable states to: 

(1) Estimate the degree to which 

different sources within a 

nonattainment area contribute to 

violations within the affected area; and 

(2) assess the expected improvement in 

air quality within the nonattainment 

area due to the adoption and 

implementation of control measures. As 

noted above, the State must develop and 

submit to EPA a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions from all sources of SO2

emissions in each nonattainment area, 

as well as any sources located outside 

the nonattainment area which may 

affect attainment in the area. See CAA 

section 172(c)(3). 

The primary SO2-emitting point 

source located within the Sullivan 

County Area is Eastman, which 

produces organic acids, aldehydes, 

esters, polymers, cellulose esters, 

specialty plastics, and acetate fibers. 

The facility also produces process steam 

and electricity for most of the 

operations, including hazardous waste 

combustion, and wastewater treatment. 

Eastman consists of three main SO2

emitting sources comprised of three 

powerhouses that include a total of 14 

boilers and several smaller emitters: 

• Powerhouse B–83 consists of 

Boilers 18–24, denoted B–18—B–24, 

which fire coal to provide steam for 

facility operations. Each of the seven 

emissions units has the following 

capacities: Boilers B–18—B–20 are rated 

at 246 million British thermal units per 

hour (MMBtu/hr); Boilers B–21—B–22 

have a rated capacity of 249 MMBtu/hr; 

and Boilers B–23—B–24 have a rated 

capacity of 501 MMBtu/hr. All seven B– 

83 boilers have existing limits on SO2

emissions of 2.4 lbs/MMBtu based on a 

1-hour averaging period. Actual 

emissions from B–83 were 5,686 tons 

per year (tpy) in 2011. 

• Powerhouse B–253 consists of units 

B–25—B–29 which fire coal to provide 

steam for facility operations. Each 

emissions unit, B–25—B–29 has a rated 

capacity of 655 MMBtu/hr and an 

existing limit on SO2 emissions of 2.4 

lbs/MMBtu based on a 24-hour 

averaging period. The B–253 

powerhouse is currently undergoing a 

multi-year project to convert the power 

generation from the coal-fired boilers to 

natural gas-fired boilers to comply with 

regional haze best available retrofit 

technology (BART). See section IV.B.4.i 

for additional BART discussion. The 

result will be that the emissions units 

B–25—B–29 will fire only natural gas as 

repowered units start up and for all 

units no later than the attainment date 

for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, October 4, 

2018.3 Actual emissions from B–253 

were 14,897 tpy in 2011. 

• Powerhouse B–325 consists of 

Boilers B–30 and B–31, which fire coal 

to provide steam for facility operations. 

Boiler B–30 has a rated capacity of 780 

MMBtu/hr and an existing emission 

limit on SO2 emissions of 317 lbs/hr 

based on a 30-day averaging period, 

equivalent to 0.406 lbs/MMBtu. Boiler 

B–31 is rated at 880 MMBtu/hr and has 

an existing limit on SO2 emissions of 

293 lbs/hr based on a 30-day averaging 

period, equivalent to 0.333 lbs/MMBtu. 

Actual emissions from B–325 were 

1,276 tpy in 2011. 

• The B–248 unit consists of three 

hazardous waste combustors, one liquid 

chemical waste incinerator and two 

rotary kilns that can burn solid or liquid 

chemical waste, B–248–2, Vent A, and 

B–248–1, Vents D and E, respectively. 

According to the attainment SIP 

submitted by TDEC in May 2017, each 

of these units is subject to an existing 

limit on SO2 emissions for an exhaust 

concentration of 1,000 parts per million 

by volume SO2, equivalent to 1,109 tpy 

for B–248–2, Vent A, and 1,552 tpy each 

for 248–1, Vents D and E. Actual 

emissions from B–248 were 7.3 tpy in 

2011. On February 1, 2018, TDEC issued 

a revised title V permit (568496) that 

included additional SO2 limits of 20 tpy 

for Vent A and 40 tpy for Vents D and 

E, combined. 

• Eastman has 31 other smaller 

emission units that provide various 

services to other parts of the facility, 

and these units account for 194.56 tpy 

of the allowable emissions across the 

facility. Actual emissions from the 

remaining units were 40.9 tpy in 2011. 

For more information on these 

miscellaneous units, see the May 12, 

2017, submittal. 

The emissions at units for Eastman 

were recorded either by using data 

collected from CEMS or by material 

balances based on feed rates and other 

parameters and are quality-assured by 

TDEC.4

The next largest SO2 source within 

the nonattainment area is the 

EnviraGlass, LLC glass manufacturing 

facility (EnviraGlass). SO2 emissions 

from EnviraGlass were 49.3 tons in 

2011, as determined from material 

balances. The EnviraGlass Kingsport 

facility consists of one main SO2

emitter. The glass melting furnace #1 

(GMF–1) fires natural gas and No. 2 fuel 

oil. The allowable permit limit for 

EnviraGlass of 39.6 lb/hr was included 

in the attainment modeling. 

The next largest SO2 source in 

Sullivan County is located just outside 

the Sullivan County Area boundary: 

Domtar Paper Company, LLC, Kingsport 

Paper Mill (Domtar). Domtar produces 

pulp and paper and is permitted to burn 

hog fuel, dry wood residue, engineered 

fuel, wastewater treatment plant sludge, 

fuel oil, and natural gas. SO2 emissions 

from this facility were 70.8 tons in 2011, 

as determined from material balances. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30614 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5For more information on this correction to the 

2011 NEI, Version 2 emissions, see Attachment A 

of Tennessee’s May 12, 2017, submittal. 

6For more information on this correction to the 

2011 NEI, Version 2 emissions, see Table 3–8 of the 

May 12, 2017, submittal. 

The permitted allowable SO2 emissions 

limit for the main SO2 emissions unit at 

Domtar, the HFB1–1 biomass boiler, was 

included in the attainment modeling 

(264 lb/hr = 33.26 g/s). TDEC 

determined that the other SO2 emissions 

units at Domtar did not need to be 

explicitly modeled because of their 

smaller emissions levels. Therefore, 

these sources were accounted for using 

the background concentration discussed 

in section IV.B.5 of this notice. 

TDEC utilized EPA’s 2011 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), Version 2 as 

the starting point for compiling point 

source emissions for the base year 

emissions inventory. The hazardous 

waste incinerators at Eastman in B–248 

were erroneously reported as 20 tpy 

each for B–248–1 and B–248–2. TDEC 

corrected this information from the 2011 

NEI with information submitted by 

Eastman.5 EnviraGlass, formerly 

Heritage Glass, did not report emissions 

for the 2011 NEI, so TDEC used 

semiannual compliance reports 

pursuant to the title V operating permit 

for the facility to determine emissions. 

TDEC also used the 2011 NEI, Version 

2 to obtain estimates of the area and 

nonroad sources. For onroad mobile 

source emissions, TDEC utilized EPA’s 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 

(MOVES2014). A more detailed 

discussion of the emissions inventory 

development for the Sullivan County 

Area can be found in Tennessee’s May 

12, 2017, submittal. 

Table 1 below shows the level of 

emissions, expressed in tpy, in the 

Sullivan County Area for the 2011 base 

year by emissions source category. The 

point source category includes all 

sources within the nonattainment area. 

TABLE 1—2011 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE SULLIVAN COUNTY AREA

[tpy] 

Year Point Onroad Nonroad Area Total 

2011 ..................................................................................... 21,956.5 1.62 0.16 10.6 21,968.88 

Domtar is not included in the base 

year inventory for the Sullivan County 

Area because it is outside of the 

boundary of the nonattainment area. 

However, TDEC evaluated 2011 

emissions from this facility to evaluate 

its impact on the area. Domtar’s 

emissions were reported for the 2011 

NEI, but TDEC determined that 

emissions from HFB1–1, the biomass 

boiler, were initially reported in error as 

2.06 tons. Actual emissions were 

determined from fuel usage data 

supplied by Domtar, leading to 44.1 tpy 

SO2 emitted in 2011 from HFB1–1 and 

total facility-wide emissions of 70.8 

tpy.6

EPA has evaluated Tennessee’s 2011 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Sullivan County Area and has made the 

preliminary determination that this 

inventory was developed consistent 

with EPA’s guidance. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is 

proposing to approve Tennessee’s 2011 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Sullivan County Area. 

The attainment demonstration also 

provides for a projected attainment year 

inventory that includes estimated 

emissions for all emission sources of 

SO2 which are determined to impact the 

nonattainment area for the year in 

which the area is expected to attain the 

standard. This inventory must address 

any future growth in the Area. Growth 

means any potential increases in 

emissions of the pollutant for which the 

Sullivan County Area is nonattainment 

(SO2) due to the construction and 

operation of new major sources, major 

modifications to existing sources, or 

increased minor source activity. TDEC 

included a statement in its May 12, 2017 

submittal declaring that the air agency 

assumes no growth of major sources in 

the Sullivan County Area, and that 

minor source growth should not 

significantly impact the Area. TDEC 

cites to its ‘‘Growth Policy’’ found at 

Tennessee Air Pollution Control 

Regulations (TAPCR) 1200–03–09– 

.01(5), which includes the 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) program and the requirement 

for minor sources and minor 

modifications proposing to construct in 

a nonattainment area to apply BACT, 

approved into the SIP and last updated 

on July 30, 2012 (see 77 FR 44481). The 

NNSR program includes lowest 

achievable emissions rate, offsets, and 

public hearing requirements for major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications. 

TDEC provided a future year 

projected emissions inventory for all 

known sources included in the 2011 

base year inventory, discussed above, 

that were determined to impact the 

Sullivan County Area. The projected 

emissions are set to be accurate beyond 

October 1, 2018, when the control 

strategy for the attainment 

demonstration will be fully 

implemented. Therefore, as an annual 

future year inventory, the point source 

portion is accurate beyond October 1, 

2018, and would represent an annual 

inventory for 2019 or beyond. The 

projected emissions in Table 2 are 

estimated actual emissions, representing 

a 67.6 percent reduction from the base 

year SO2 emissions. The point source 

emissions were estimated by taking 

credit for the control strategy to repower 

the boilers at B–253 and assuming 

actual emissions at other Eastman units 

would remain the same as in 2011. 

Additionally, EnviraGlass has not 

operated in recent years, and TDEC 

includes a statement in its May 12, 2017 

submittal that as of February 2017, the 

source had not resumed its operations. 

Therefore, EnviraGlass emissions were 

projected as zero tpy. If this source 

began operation again, actual emissions 

would be much less than those from 

Eastman (∼50 tpy), and would be 

reported in future inventories. 

Per EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance, 

the existing allowable emissions limits 

and the new 30-day, combined emission 

limit (see section IV.B.4) that TDEC is 

requesting EPA approve into the SIP, 

were modeled to show attainment. 

These projected actual emissions 

included in the future year inventory 

are less than the allowable emission 

limits, and therefore offer a greater level 

of certainty that the NAAQS will be 

protected under all operating scenarios. 

Emissions estimates for onroad sources 

were re-estimated with MOVES2014. 

The nonroad emissions were projected 

using national growth factors, and area 

source emissions were scaled based on 

emission factors developed using the 

Annual Energy Outlook 2014 for 

consumption and production forecasts. 

Both categories were then apportioned 

to the nonattainment area based on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30615 

7For more information, see Attachments A–D of 

the May 12, 2017, submittal. 

8Tennessee and Eastman determined that urban 

dispersion coefficients are appropriate for the 

modeling analysis based upon an assessment of 

land use within a 3-kilometer radius of the Eastman 

boiler stacks using the Auer technique contained in 

Section 7.2.1.1.b.i of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. 

The analysis resulted in 52.4 percent of the area 

being classified as urban land use categories, which 

is above the 50 percent criteria for using urban 

dispersion coefficients. Additionally, Tennessee 

and Eastman performed an analysis to estimate an 

effective population for the urban option to account 

for the large industrial heat release at the Eastman 

facility. The results of this analysis yield an 

effective population of 200,000, which is 

approximately four times the approximate 50,000 

population of Kingsport, Tennessee. The complete 

details of Tennessee and Eastman’s analysis are 

discussed in Section 4.1 of Attachment G1, 

‘‘NAAQS Attainment Demonstration Modeling 

Analysis,’’ in Tennessee’s final SIP submittal. EPA 

preliminarily agrees that urban dispersion 

coefficients with an effective population of 200,000 

is appropriate for the modeling, and believes the 

procedures to estimate the effective population are 

appropriate. 

9Pursuant to Section 8.4.2.e of 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix W, if site-specific meteorology is used for 

the modeling analysis, at least 1-year of site-specific 

data should be collected. The data should meet the 

quality assurance criteria in EPA’s 2000 

‘‘Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for 

Regulatory Modeling Applications.’’ Publication 

No. EPA–454/R–99–005. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. (NTIS No. PB 2001–103606). 

population in the nonattainment area 

relative to that of Sullivan County.7

TABLE 2—PROJECTED 2018 SO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE SULLIVAN COUNTY AREA

[tpy] 

Year Point Onroad Nonroad Area Total 

2011 ..................................................................................... 21,956.5 1.62 0.16 10.6 21,968.88 

2019 ..................................................................................... 7,104.5 0.64 0.006 10.521 7,115.67 

B. Attainment Modeling Demonstration 

Eastman operates a large 

manufacturing facility in Kingsport that 

includes major SO2 sources with the 

potential to emit greater than 100 tons 

per year (tpy) of SO2. The SO2 emissions 

come from three main boiler groups B– 

83, B–253 and B–325. Powerhouse B– 

253 serves five boilers (Boilers 25–29), 

each with an individual stack, that 

provide steam and electricity to the 

facility. Powerhouse B–325 serves two 

coal-fired boilers that vent to a single 

stack (Boiler 30 and Boiler 31). Boiler 30 

is equipped with a spray dryer absorber 

and electrostatic precipitator to control 

particulate matter and acid gases. Boiler 

31 is equipped with a spray dryer 

absorber and fabric filter to control 

particulate matter and acid gases. 

Powerhouse B–83 serves seven boilers; 

five coal-fired boilers (Boilers 18–22) 

venting to a single stack, and two coalfired boilers (Boilers 23 and 24) that also 

burn wastewater treatment sludge, 

venting to a single stack. 

These boilers, along with three other 

backup natural gas-fired boilers with 

minimal SO2 emissions (B–423), 

provide process steam and most of the 

electrical power needed to supply 

Eastman’s operations. The combination 

of boilers and boiler operating loads at 

any given time depends on 

manufacturing demands along with 

availability of boilers, as each boiler has 

annual scheduled shutdowns. The 

following discussion evaluates various 

features of the modeling that Tennessee 

used in its attainment demonstration. 

1. Model Selection 

Tennessee’s attainment demonstration 

used AERMOD, the preferred model for 

this application, and the associated preprocessor modeling programs. The State 

used the 16216r version of AERMOD 

with regulatory default options and 

urban dispersion coefficients.8 Receptor 

elevations and hill heights required by 

AERMOD were determined using the 

AERMAP terrain preprocessor version 

11103. The meteorological data was 

processed using AERMET version 16216 

with the regulatory adjusted U* option. 

The surface characteristics around the 

meteorological surface station were 

determined using AERSURFACE 

version 13016 and building downwash 

was assessed with the BPIP processor 

(version 04274). EPA proposes to find 

these model selections appropriate for 

the attainment demonstration. 

2. Meteorological Data 

The Sullivan County nonattainment 

area is in a wide valley surrounded by 

complex terrain ridges. Eastman 

evaluated available surface 

meteorological data in the area and 

determined that none of nearby National 

Weather Surface (NWS) stations in area 

were representative of the site-specific 

winds that occur in the nonattainment 

area valley. Therefore, Eastman installed 

and operated a site-specific 100-meter 

meteorological data tower and Doppler 

SODAR system to collect profiles of 

meteorological data (wind speed, wind 

direction, temperature). One year of sitespecific data was collected from April 1, 

2012 through March 31, 2013.9 EPA has 

reviewed the site-specific 

meteorological data and has 

preliminarily determined that the data 

meets the quality assurance criteria and 

the 1-year of data is appropriate for the 

modeling analysis. Site-specific 

turbulence parameters (sigma-theta and 

sigma-w) were also collected. However, 

as recommended in the December 2016 

final revisions to the EPA’s Guideline 

on Air Quality Models, contained in 40 

CFR part 51, appendix W (Appendix 

W), since Eastman chose to use the 

adjusted U* (surface friction velocity) 

regulatory option in AERMET, the sitespecific turbulence parameters were not 

used. The data from the 100-meter tower 

and Doppler SODAR were merged with 

concurrent additional NWS surface data 

parameters needed by AERMOD (e.g., 

cloud cover data) from the Tri-City 

Regional Airport National Weather 

Station (13877) and upper air data from 

Nashville, TN (13897). 

The surface roughness (zo), albedo (r), 

and Bowen ratio (Bo) required surface 

parameters were determined for the area 

around the site-specific meteorological 

surface station using AERSURFACE 

version 13016. Eastman processed the 

meteorological data and surface 

parameters into AERMOD-ready files 

using AERMET version 16216 with the 

regulatory adjusted U* option. Complete 

details of the meteorological data 

collection and processing are available 

in sections 3.1–3.8 of Attachment G1, 

‘‘NAAQS Attainment Demonstration 

Modeling Analysis,’’ in Tennessee’s 

final SIP submittal. EPA preliminarily 

finds that the meteorological data 

collection and processing is appropriate 

for the modeled attainment 

demonstration. 

3. Emissions Data 

The emission inputs to Tennessee’s 

attainment demonstration modeling 

reflect 1-hour emissions that correspond 

to allowable emissions from sulfur 

dioxide emission units at the Eastman 

facility and other nearby emissions 

sources located within and outside the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30616 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10A BART-eligible source is an emission source 

that has the potential to emit 250 tons or more of 

a visibility-impairing pollutant, was constructed 

between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 

whose operations fall within one or more of 26 

listed source categories. The Clean Air Act requires 

BART for any BART-eligible source that a State 

determines ‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility in any such area.’’ EPA 

finalized a limited approval/limited disapproval of 

portions of Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, regional haze 

SIP on April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24392). The April 4, 

2008, SIP established the State’s plan to comply 

with federal requirements to ensure natural 

visibility conditions at Class I areas by requiring 

affected sources to install BART for SO2 and other 

visibility-impairing pollutants. 

11Tennessee’s initial Eastman BART 

determination required Eastman to reduce SO2

emissions at Boilers 25–29 either by 92 percent or 

comply with a limit of 0.20 lbs/MMBtu established 

through the BART permit (066116H). EPA approved 

Eastman’s BART determination, the alternative 

BART option and permit 066116H on November 27, 

2012 (77 FR 70689). 

12Condition 4(f) also prohibits operation of any 

B–253 boiler not converted after the October 2018 

SO2 NAAQS compliance date until repowered to 

natural gas. 

13Established in construction Permit 955272F, 

Boiler 30 has a 317 lbs/hr 30-day SO2 limit and 

Boiler 31 has a 293 lbs/hr 30-day SO2 limit, giving 

B–325 an allowable limit of 610 lbs/hr on a 30-day 

average. 

14EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance recommends 

that attainment plans provide for compliance at 

least one calendar year prior to the attainment 

deadline, to facilitate collection of air quality 

monitoring data reflecting attainment plan 

implementation. This air quality data would 

indicate whether the attainment plan is in fact 

successfully providing for attainment. Nevertheless, 

the guidance also notes that EPA has the discretion 

to approve plans that are judged to provide for 

attainment by the statutory attainment deadline, 

even if the monitoring data collected prior to the 

attainment deadline are judged to indicate that that 

plan has not yielded timely attainment. EPA 

believes that Tennessee’s attainment plan provides 

for attainment, notwithstanding the possibility that 

subsequent review of available monitoring data may 

support a conclusion that the plan did not in fact 

provide for timely attainment. 

Sullivan County nonattainment area. 

Eastman’s modeled emissions sources 

include nine coal-fired boilers, five 

natural gas boilers that were converted 

from coal-fired to natural gas-fired units, 

and a tail-gas incineration unit. 

Although the limit on emissions from 

Eastman governs the 30-day average 

sum of emissions from all nine coalfired boilers, Tennessee conducted 

modeling using a constant hourly rate 

(the 1,905 lb/hr 1-hour CEV), as 

recommended by EPA’s April 2014 SO2

guidance. As discussed in more detail in 

section IV.B.6 below, Tennessee has 

conducted 34 modeling runs using a full 

range of emission distributions, to show 

that the limit ensures attainment, 

regardless of how emissions are 

distributed among the various boilers 

within this limit. In addition, Tennessee 

used the statistical procedures 

recommended in Appendix C of EPA’s 

guidance to establish an adjustment 

factor that it applied to determine the 

limit it would otherwise have set. 

Two additional SO2 emissions 

sources, EnviraGlass, located within the 

nonattainment area, and Domtar Paper, 

located just outside the nonattainment 

area, were also included in Tennessee’s 

attainment demonstration modeling, 

modeled at their hourly emission limits. 

Additional details regarding the 

emissions units are included in the 

Emissions Inventory, section IV.A., of 

this proposed rule and section 2 of 

Attachment G1, ‘‘NAAQS Attainment 

Demonstration Modeling Analysis,’’ in 

Tennessee’s final SIP submittal. EPA 

proposes to find that the emissions 

sources included in the modeling are 

appropriate for the attainment 

demonstration. All other sources not 

explicitly included in the modeling 

were addressed using the background 

concentration discussed in section 

IV.B.5 of this notice. 

4. Emission Limits 

An important prerequisite for 

approval of an attainment plan is that 

the emission limits that provide for 

attainment be quantifiable, fully 

enforceable, replicable, and 

accountable. See General Preamble at 

13567–68. Some of the limits that 

Tennessee’s plan relies on are expressed 

as 30-day average limits. Therefore, part 

of the review of Tennessee’s attainment 

plan must address the use of these 

limits, both with respect to the general 

suitability of using such limits for this 

purpose and with respect to whether the 

limits included in the plan have been 

suitably demonstrated to provide for 

attainment. The first subsection that 

follows addresses the enforceability of 

the limits in the plan, and the second 

subsection that follows addresses the 

combined, 30-day emission limit for 

Boilers 18–24, 30 and 31. Sections 

IV.B.6 and 7 discuss the modeling 

conducted to demonstrate that the limit 

of combined emissions of these boilers 

suitably provides for attainment. 

i. Enforceability 

Section 172(c)(6) provides that 

emission limits and other control 

measures in the attainment SIP shall be 

enforceable. Tennessee’s attainment SIP 

for the Sullivan County nonattainment 

area relies on control measures and 

enforceable emission limits for 

Powerhouses B–253, B–83 and B–325 

(for more discussion on these boilers, 

please refer to section IV.A above). 

These emission reduction measures 

were accounted for in the attainment 

modeling for the Eastman facility which 

demonstrates attainment for the 2010 

NAAQS. 

Tennessee’s control strategy for B–253 

relies on compliance with the State’s 

Regional Haze SIP to install BART for 

SO2 and other pollutants that impair 

visibility at Class I areas. TDEC’s 

original April 4, 2008, regional haze SIP 

identified B–253 (Boilers 25–29) at 

Eastman Chemical as BART-eligible 

units.10 Tennessee subsequently 

amended its regional haze SIP (May 14, 

2012 and May 25, 2012) to establish 

BART requirements for Eastman 

including an alternative BART option to 

repower (convert coal-fired boilers to 

natural gas) Boilers 25–29 at B–253 by 

December 31, 2018.11 The alternative 

BART measure became federallyenforceable through the issuance of 

BART permit 066116H on May 9, 2012, 

and an amendment on May 22, 2012, 

which changed the conversion 

completion date to align with the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS compliance deadline of 

October 4, 2018 (Condition 4(f)).12

Tennessee issued construction permit 

966859F on June 15, 2013, authorizing 

construction of the B–253 boilers 

conversion to natural gas. Condition 6 of 

Permit 966859F establishes a natural gas 

fuel restriction after conversion is 

complete for each boiler. 

In conjunction with the natural gas 

conversion control strategy at B–253, 

Tennessee also established a 30-day 

combined SO2 emission limit for nine 

coal-fired boilers at B–83 (seven boilers) 

and B–325 (two boilers) pursuant to 

EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance on 

longer term average limits (see section 

IV.B.4.ii below). Tennessee established 

a single, combined 30-day rolling 

average of 1,753 lbs/hr SO2 emission 

limit through Permit 070072F on May 

10, 2017, for Boilers 18–24 at B–83 and 

Boilers 30–31 at B–325. Boilers 30 and 

31 at B–325 also have existing 

individual SO2 emission limits of 317 

lbs/hr and 293 lbs/hr, respectively, 

based on a 30-calendar day rolling 

average.13 Eastman must comply with 

the combined 30-day limit for the 30- 

day period ending on October 31, 

2018 14 and each 30-day period 

thereafter. Therefore, Eastman must 

begin to comply with the new limit no 

later than October 2, 2018. Compliance 

will be determined based on continuous 

emission monitoring system (CEMS) 

data for all nine boilers. EPA provides 

additional details, section IV.B.4.ii 

below, regarding how the combined 30- 

day SO2 emission limit was derived. 

The enforceable emission limit and 

compliance parameter ensure control 

measures will achieve the necessary 

incremental SO2 emissions reductions 

necessary to attain the NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable. Based on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30617 

15EPA notes condition 4(f) was approved into 

Tennessee’s SIP on November 12, 2012 as part of 

the State’s Regional Haze SIP. See77 FR 70689. 

16 In Tennessee’s SO2 attainment SIP (page 33) the 

state requested EPA approve Conditions 1–5 from 

Permit 070072F however, EPA notes only four 

conditions were included in the final issued permit. 

17See emails from TDEC to EPA Region 4 dated 

January 26 and February 8, 2018. 

the attainment modeling of B–253 

repowering combined with the 30-day 

SO2 emission limits for B–83 and B– 

325, the area is projected to begin 

showing attaining monitoring design 

values. 

Tennessee’s May 11, 2017, attainment 

SIP requests EPA approve into the SIP 

the authorization for alternative BART 

repowering of Boilers 25–29 at B–253 at 

Condition 4(f) of Regional Haze permit 

066116H 15 (approved into Tennessee’s 

regional haze SIP on November 12, 

2012), natural gas fuel restriction for 

Boilers 25–29 (after each natural gas 

conversion) at Condition 6 of PSD 

construction permit 966859F, and the 

30-day rolling single, combined SO2

emission limit of 1,753 lbs/hr for boilers 

at B–83 and B–325 at Conditions 1 

through 4 16 of permit 070072F, which 

also include compliance parameters 

(monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting). The accountability of the SO2

emission limit is established through 

TDEC’s inclusion in the nonattainment 

SIP and in the attainment modeling 

demonstration to ensure permanent and 

enforceable emission limitations as 

necessary to provide for attainment of 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

ii. Longer Term Average Limits 

Tennessee has developed a single, 

combined emission limit of 1,753 lbs/hr 

of SO2 emissions on a 30-day average 

basis. This emission limit applies to 

nine coal-fired boilers, which emit SO2

from three separate stacks from 

powerhouses B–83 and B–325. These 

nine coal-fired boilers help provide both 

steam and electricity for the Eastman 

facility and Boilers 23 and 24 (at B–83) 

also burn wastewater treatment sludge. 

Based on the unique, interconnected 

operations and the steam demand for 

the Eastman facility, Tennessee elected 

to establish a single, combined emission 

limit governing the sum of emissions 

from these nine boilers. Tennessee 

concluded that the NAAQS will be 

attained so long as total hourly 

emissions from these nine boilers are at 

or below 1,905 lbs/hr. Tennessee based 

this conclusion on a set of 34 modeling 

runs, which encompassed several 

‘‘worst-case’’ emissions scenarios. These 

scenarios and the modeling results are 

described in detail in section IV.B.6 of 

this notice. EPA ordinarily uses the term 

critical emissions value (CEV) to mean 

the 1-hour emission rate for an 

individual stack that, in combination 

with the other CEVs for other relevant 

stacks, the state shows through proper 

modeling to yield attainment. However, 

in this case, EPA is using the term CEV 

to mean the total emissions from all 

nine Eastman coal-fired boilers emitting 

from three stacks that Tennessee has 

shown to yield attainment, reflecting 

Tennessee’s approach of evaluating an 

appropriate limit on the sum of these 

emissions. 

After establishment of this combinedsource CEV, Tennessee used the 

procedures recommended in Appendix 

C of EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance to 

determine an adjustment factor with 

which to establish a single, combined 

emission limit with a longer term 

averaging time (30-day). Tennessee 

analyzed three years of historical hourly 

emissions data (2013–2015) from the 

nine boilers in question. Tennessee used 

the sum of emissions from the nine 

boilers in this analysis, determining a 

99th percentile of the 1-hour total 

emissions values and a 99th percentile 

of the 30-day average total emission 

values. The ratio of these 99th 

percentile values yielded an adjustment 

factor of 0.92. Multiplication of this 

adjustment factor times the collective 

CEV yielded a 30-day average limit of 

1,753 lbs/hr. EPA believes that 

Tennessee, by following the approach 

recommended in Appendix C of the 

April 2014 SO2 guidance, has justified 

a conclusion that this 1,753 lbs/hour 

limit (governing the sum of emissions 

from the nine boilers) may be 

considered comparably stringent to a 1- 

hour limit of 1,905 lbs/hr (again 

governing the sum of emissions from the 

nine boilers). Since the emission limit 

being established for these nine boilers 

is a single, combined limit, EPA 

believes it is appropriate for the 

adjustment factor also to be computed 

based on the total combined emissions 

from the nine boilers. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to agree that the adjustment 

factor of 0.92 is appropriate in this case. 

EPA’s April 2014 SO2 guidance 

further states, ‘‘The second important 

factor in assessing whether a longer 

term average limit provides appropriate 

protection against NAAQS violations is 

whether the source can be expected to 

comply with a longer term average limit 

in a manner that minimizes the 

frequency of occasions with elevated 

emissions and magnitude of emissions 

on those occasions.’’ The guidance 

advises that the establishment of 

supplemental limits to provide direct 

constraints on the frequency and/or 

magnitude of emissions exceeding the 

CEV can be valuable, but the guidance 

also acknowledges the possibility that 

occasions of emissions exceeding the 

CEV may be rare and modest in 

magnitude even without supplemental 

enforceable limitations. Tennessee 

concluded that occasions of emissions 

exceeding the critical emissions would 

be infrequent and modest in magnitude 

even without adoption of supplemental 

limits. EPA conducted its own 

evaluation of whether this element of 

the guidance is satisfied, such that 

compliance with Tennessee’s 30-day 

average emission limit would provide 

adequate confidence that the area will 

attain the standard. 

The historical emissions data do not 

provide a direct measure of the 

frequency and magnitude of elevated 

emissions to expect once Eastman 

complies with the 30-day limit. The 

historical Eastman emissions data that 

Tennessee used is from a period in 

which emissions frequently were higher 

than the new limit. During the 2013 to 

2015 period, Eastman’s total emissions 

exceeded the subsequently adopted 

limit (1,753 lbs/hr) in approximately 

32.4 percent of 30-day averages, and 

exceeded the 1-hour CEV (1,905 lbs/hr) 

in approximately 21.5 percent of hours. 

Thus, Eastman will be required to make 

emission reductions sufficient to 

comply with the new 30-day limit 

(1,753 lb/hr), which would both 

eliminate the occasions of 30-day 

average emissions above 1,753 lbs/hr 

and reduce the number and possibly 

eliminate the occasions when 1-hour 

emission levels exceed 1,905 lbs/hr. The 

question then is how frequently and 

with what associated emission levels 

can 1-hour emissions levels be expected 

to exceed the CEV once Eastman 

complies with the 30-day average limit. 

Since Tennessee has permitted a 

combined, multi-stack emission limit 

(1,753 lb/hr) for the nine coal-fired 

boilers, there are multiple compliance 

scenarios possible. Consequently, there 

is also a range of frequencies that the 

hourly emissions can exceed the CEV 

while still meeting the 30-day permit 

limit. To forecast the frequency and 

magnitude of emissions of occasions 

with emissions above the CEV, EPA 

asked Tennessee for information 

regarding how Eastman expects to 

comply with the new limit. Tennessee 

responded 17 that Eastman’s compliance 

strategy will likely be to modify the 

order of dispatch of the nine boilers in 

question, dispatching Boilers 18 through 

22 from Powerhouse B–83 less often in 

the future, in particular by reducing the 

dispatching of the smaller coal-fired 

boilers (Boilers 18, 19, and 20) in favor 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30618 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

18Tennessee’s analysis in the February 8 email 

confirmed that, under the new combined limit, 

there should be adequate capacity available at 

natural gas boilers at B–253 and B–423, without the 

need to revise existing permit limits for these 

individual units. 19The email correspondence with TDEC and 

supporting documentation (including Tennessee’s 

spreadsheet data and EPA’s spreadsheet used for 

these calculations) are in the docket (ID: EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0626) for this proposed rule. 

20Established in PSD Permit 955272F, Boiler 30 

has a 317 lbs/hr 30-day SO2 limit and Boiler 31 has 

a 293 lbs/hr 30-day SO2 limit, giving B–325 an 

allowable limit of 610 lbs/hr on a 30-day average. 

For the purposes of modeling, Eastman calculated 

an adjustment factor specific to the B–325 stack in 

accordance with the methods of Appendix C of 

EPA’s guidance. Eastman calculated an adjustment 

factor of 0.84, which yielded a corresponding onehour emission rate of 726 lbs/hr. 

of greater operation of the larger boilers 

that are being converted to burn natural 

gas.18 These smaller boilers are the 

oldest and least efficient boilers of the 

nine and provide only low pressure 

steam to the facility. EPA used this 

information provided by Tennessee and 

the less efficient nature of these boilers 

and further analyzed the historical 

(2013 to 2015) emissions. Given the 

order of preference in boiler dispatch 

provided by Tennessee and efficiency 

considerations, EPA expects that three 

boilers (B–18 to B–20) may be operated 

at approximately 20 percent of their 

historical rates. This level of operation 

for these boilers would yield 

compliance with the new limit and 

allow Eastman to meet its steam 

generation needs. With that level of 

operation of those boilers, the number of 

occasions of total plant emissions 

exceeding the CEV was found to be 1.1 

percent of the hours, with these hours 

on average being 4.4 percent above the 

CEV.19 During EPA’s analyses, we found 

that the frequency of emissions over the 

CEV could range from 1 to 10 percent 

of the time, depending on the 

operational scenario used to comply 

with the 30-day limit. While EPA 

acknowledges the uncertainty in 

forecasting the frequency of elevated 

emissions and the magnitude of 

emissions on those occasions, based on 

the information received from 

Tennessee and our own analysis, EPA 

believes that emissions at Eastman are 

unlikely to exceed the CEV more than 

a few percent of the hours, at levels 

generally only a modest percent over the 

CEV. Compliance with the 30-day limit 

will be ensured using a CEMS and 

appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. 

Consequently, EPA proposes to 

conclude that the second criterion for 

use of longer term average limits is 

satisfied, even without supplemental 

limits to constrain the frequency and 

emissions level of occasions when 

emissions exceed the CEV. 

Based on a review of the State’s 

submittal, EPA believes that the single, 

combined 30-day average limit for the 

nine boilers in Powerhouses B–83 and 

B–325, in conjunction with the existing 

individual 30-day average limits for 

Boilers B–30 and B–31, provides a 

suitable alternative to establishing a 1- 

hour average emission limit for each 

unit or for the collected units at this 

source. Further discussion of 

Tennessee’s modeling analysis of its set 

of limits, along with discussion of 

pertinent considerations in applying the 

procedures of Appendix C of EPA’s 

guidance in determining appropriate 

longer term limits, is provided in 

section IV.B.6 below. In summary, EPA 

believes that the State has used a 

suitable data base in an appropriate 

manner and has thereby applied an 

appropriate adjustment, yielding an 

emission limit that has comparable 

stringency to the 1-hour average limit 

that the State determined would 

otherwise have been necessary to 

provide for attainment. While the 30- 

day average limit allows for occasions in 

which emissions may be higher than the 

level that would be allowed with the 

combined-unit 1-hour limit, the State’s 

limit compensates by requiring average 

emissions to be lower than the level that 

would otherwise have been required by 

a 1-hour average limit. As described 

above in this section, in section III and 

explained in more detail in EPA’s April 

2014 SO2 guidance for nonattainment 

plans, EPA believes that appropriately 

set longer term average limits provide a 

reasonable basis by which 

nonattainment plans may provide for 

attainment. Based on the general 

information provided in this guidance 

document as well as the information in 

Tennessee’s attainment SIP, EPA 

proposes to find that the 30-day average 

limit for Eastman’s nine boilers in 

combination with other limitations in 

the State’s plan will provide for 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

5. Background Concentration 

In accordance with section 8.3 of 40 

CFR part 51, appendix W, Tennessee’s 

attainment demonstration addresses the 

impacts from all SO2 emissions sources 

not explicitly included in the AERMOD 

modeling analysis by adding 

representative background 

concentrations to the impacts from the 

modeled sources. The State and 

Eastman chose to use 2013–2015 

ambient monitoring data from a sulfur 

dioxide monitor located at Mammoth 

Cave National Park in Kentucky (AQS 

ID 21–061–0501) to develop ‘‘seasonal 

by hour of the day’’ background 

concentrations. The hourly 

concentrations range from 2.79 to 18.51 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). 

The complete details of the background 

concentrations are described in section 

3.9 of Attachment G1 of the Tennessee’s 

Attainment Demonstration submittal. 

EPA preliminarily finds use of the 

Mammoth Cave background data is 

appropriate for the attainment modeling 

analysis. 

6. Analysis of Multi-Stack Limit 

The use of a limit governing the sum 

of emissions from multiple stacks, in 

lieu of individual limits for each stack, 

calls for a demonstration that the worstcase distribution of these emissions 

provides for attainment. To provide this 

demonstration, Tennessee conducted 

thirty-four (34) AERMOD modeling runs 

using varying combinations of boiler 

load and emissions scenarios for the 

nine coal-fired boilers to verify that the 

modeling includes the worst-case 

operational scenarios allowed under the 

single, thirty-day rolling average, 

emissions limit of 1,753 lbs/hr for the 

nine coal-fired boilers. The 34 modeling 

scenarios were performed to derive the 

single, combined 1,905 lbs/hr CEV for 

the nine coal-fired boilers (two stacks at 

the B–83 Powerhouse and one stack at 

the B–325 Powerhouse) that results in 

modeled attainment of the NAAQS. As 

defined in EPA’s April 2014 SO2

guidance, the CEV is the level of 

emissions that results in modeled 

concentrations that are just below the 

level of the NAAQS; as noted above, 

this term is being applied to the 

combination of emissions from the nine 

coal-fired boilers referenced earlier in 

the notice. 

With these 34 AERMOD modeling 

runs, Tennessee and Eastman evaluated 

a wide range of future potential 

operational scenarios, considering boiler 

steam load demands for Eastman’s 

production processes and boiler loadshifting that is projected to occur once 

the conversion of the five coal-fired 

boilers at B–253 (Boilers 25–29) from 

burning coal to natural gas is completed 

by October 2018. Based upon this 

evaluation, 34 operational scenarios 

were selected by Tennessee and 

Eastman for the CEV modeling analysis. 

Four of these 34 operation scenarios 

reflected all of the SO2 being emitted 

from a single stack, including two 

scenarios where all of the 1,905 lbs/hr 

is released from one or the other of the 

two B–83 stacks individually, one 

scenario where the B–325 stack emitted 

726 lbs/hr 20 (which is the one hour 

equivalent to the current permitted, 

federally enforceable allowable 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30619 

emissions limit for B–325), and one 

scenario where the B–325 stack emitted 

1,800 lbs/hr to simulate a B–325 worstcase emissions scenario. The modeled 

predicted concentrations from the three 

single-stack scenarios with permissible 

emission levels ranged from 89.08 mg/ 

m3 to 182.7 mg/m3; the scenario with B– 

325 emitting 1,800 lbs/hr, well above its 

permissible level, yielded an estimated 

highest concentration of 190.8 mg/m3. 

Nine modeling scenarios were 

performed to evaluate emissions from 

various combinations when two of the 

three stacks are in operation. For these 

scenarios, the 1,905 lbs/hr CEV rate was 

divided between the two stacks in 

multiple combinations to represent 

reasonable potential worst-case future 

operations. The modeled predicted 

concentrations from the nine two-stack 

scenarios range from 171.6 mg/m3 to 

190.5 mg/m3, with the highest value of 

190.5 mg/m3 resulting from a scenario 

when the Boilers 18–22 B–83 stack was 

emitting at the highest level near its 

maximum capacity (1,039 lbs/hr), the 

Boilers 23–24 B–83 stack was emitting 

near its average rate (866 lbs/hr), and 

Boilers 30–31 were not operating (0 lb/ 

hr). Twenty-one modeling scenarios 

were performed to evaluate 

simultaneous operation of all three 

stacks. As with the two-stack scenarios, 

the 1,905 lbs/hr critical value emissions 

rate was divided among the three stacks 

in multiple combinations to represent 

reasonable potential worst-case future 

operations. The modeled predicted 

concentrations from the twenty-one 

three-stack scenarios range from 186.0 

mg/m3 to 195.37 mg/m3. The maximum 

model predicted concentration from the 

three-stack scenarios, which is also the 

maximum for all 34 scenarios, 195.37 

mg/m3, occurred in the three-stack 

operational scenario that assumes the 

majority of the emissions came from the 

Boilers 18–22 B–83 stack emitting near 

its maximum capacity (1,133 lbs/hr), 

emissions were slightly below normal 

from the Boilers 23–24 B–83 stack (719 

lbs/hr), and emissions were low from 

the B–325 stack (53 lbs/hr, as Boiler 30 

was assumed to not be operating and 

Boiler 31 operating under minimal 

load). Tables which summarize the 

emissions and modeling input 

parameters for each of the 34 scenarios 

and additional details about the full 

range of scenarios are contained in the 

State’s modeling analysis in sections 

7.11 and 7.12 of the State’s Attainment 

Demonstration Submittal and section 5 

of Attachment G1, ‘‘NAAQS Attainment 

Demonstration Modeling Analysis,’’ in 

Tennessee’s final SIP submittal. 

As noted earlier, in calculating the 

adjustment factor to multiply times the 

collective CEV (the 1-hour sum of 

emissions providing for attainment in 

the full range of distribution of the 

emissions) to determine a comparably 

stringent collective 30-day emission 

limit, Tennessee used statistics for the 

sum of emissions from all the stacks 

governed by this limit. EPA’s guidance 

does not expressly recommend how to 

address comparable stringency for limits 

that address the sum of emissions across 

multiple stacks. However, EPA’s 

guidance at page 32 states: 

The selection of data handling procedures 

influences the longer term averages that are 

computed and thus influences the 

relationship between a 1-hour limit and a 

comparably stringent longer term average 

limit. Therefore, . . . all analyses for 

determining comparably stringent longer 

term average limits should then apply those 

data handling procedures. 

This suggests that the computation of 

adjustment factors for a limit governing 

the sum of emissions from multiple 

stacks should be based on statistical 

analysis of the variability of the sum of 

emissions from the multiple stacks, 

irrespective of the variability of 

emissions from the individual stacks. In 

the case of Eastman, while the facility 

shifts load among its various boilers, 

resulting in relatively variable emissions 

at any boiler, the total load is relatively 

steady, resulting in only modest 

variability of total emissions. As a 

result, use of a 30-day limit makes less 

difference in the control measure 

needed to meet the limit, and so less 

adjustment is needed to establish a 30- 

day limit that is comparably stringent to 

the corresponding 1-hour limit. Given 

the demonstration that the full range of 

potential distributions of 1,905 lb/hr 

provides for attainment, EPA also 

believes that a 30-day average limit of 

1,753 lb/hr provides suitable assurance 

that attainment would result under the 

full range of distribution of these 

allowable emissions. 

7. Summary of Modeling Results 

The AERMOD modeling analysis 

contained in Tennessee’s Attainment 

Demonstration submittal resulted in a 

maximum modeled design value of 

195.37 mg/m3, including the background 

concentration, which is less than the 

196.4 mg/m3 (75 ppb) 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS. 

EPA has evaluated the modeling 

procedures, inputs and results and 

proposes to find that the results of the 

State’s modeling analysis demonstrate 

that there are no modeled violations of 

the NAAQS within the nonattainment 

area when the combined emissions from 

the nine coal-fired boilers are no greater 

that the 1,905 lbs/hr CEV. Additionally, 

EPA proposes to find that the 34 

modeling scenarios are adequate to 

address the range of possible future 

operating scenarios of the boilers at the 

Eastman facility and, therefore, support 

that the 1,905 lbs/hr combined CEV is 

appropriate. Section IV.B.4.ii. of this 

notice explains how Tennessee and 

Eastman developed the 1,753 lbs/hr 30- 

day rolling average permit limit 

following the procedures in EPA’s April 

2014 SO2 guidance. 

C. RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan provide for the 

implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of RACT) and shall provide 

for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA 

interprets RACM, including RACT, 

under section 172, as measures that a 

state determines to be reasonably 

available and which contribute to 

attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable for existing sources in the 

area. 

Tennessee’s plan for attaining the 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS in the Sullivan 

County SO2 nonattainment area is based 

on several measures, including 

repowering the B–253 boilers from coal 

to natural gas operation. Tennessee’s 

plan requires compliance with these 

measures by October 1, 2018. This date 

is consistent with Tennessee’s Regional 

Haze SIP, which was amended on May 

9, 2012. The amended SIP allowed 

Eastman to implement BART no later 

than April 30, 2017, or an alternative 

BART option (repowering of the boilers 

from coal to natural gas) by December 

31, 2018. The alternative BART option 

became federally enforceable with the 

issuance of BART permit 066116H on 

May 9, 2012. A prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) construction permit 

(966859F), which authorizes 

construction for the boiler repowering, 

was issued June 5, 2013. Condition 4(f) 

of permit 066116H requires the 

repowering of B–253 to be completed no 

later than the compliance deadline for 

the one-hour SO2 NAAQS. Also, 

Tennessee evaluated B–325 Boiler 31, 

and determined that the spray dryer 

absorber/fabric filter baghouse 

combination already in place constitutes 

RACT, and that therefore no further 

analysis is required. 

Tennessee considered various other 

measures for the remaining B–83 and B– 

325 boilers. The State evaluated a range 

of measures to reduce SO2 emissions, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30620 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

21Tennessee’s attainment SIP mistakenly states 

that the 1-hour SO2 attainment date is October 5, 

2018 instead of October 4, 2018. 

22According to TDEC, Eastman did not schedule 

the conversion of any boilers in 2015 or 2017 due 

to legally required annual boiler safety inspections 

and maintenance to ensure facility steam and 

electricity reliability. The necessary engineering 

work for the conversion of Boilers 27 and 28 in 

2016 was performed in 2015 and 2017 for Boilers 

26 and 29. For additional information, please refer 

to Tennessee’s Attainment SIP Narrative located in 

the docket (ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0626). 

23The Tennessee Boiler and Unfired Pressure 

Vessel inspection law (Tennessee Code Section 68– 

122–110) requires annual inspection and 

maintenance of Eastman’s 17 power boilers. 

According to Eastman, only one boiler at a time is 

taken off-line to ensure the necessary steam and 

electricity reliability for manufacturing operations. 

The duration of each inspection depends on the 

size and maintenance cycle of the boiler 

components. Eastman has stated it takes 46–48 of 

the 52 weeks to complete the scheduled inspections 

and boiler maintenance. Eastman also indicated 

that it is not practicable for the facility to schedule 

more than two extended inspections per calendar 

year without potential risk meeting production 

demands. 

including switching to low-sulfur coal, 

upgraded or additional control 

equipment, conversion of existing coalfired boilers to natural gas, and 

replacing existing coal-fired boilers with 

natural gas boilers. Tennessee 

determined that these other measures 

are not reasonable for a variety reasons, 

including infeasibility and cost, and that 

they were not needed to attain the 

NAAQS and would not advance the 

attainment date. See Table 5–2 in the 

submittal for additional details on the 

measures analyzed. In addition, 

Tennessee evaluated other operations at 

Eastman as well as additional sources 

within and adjacent to the 

nonattainment area and determined that 

no additional controls were required as 

RACT. 

Tennessee has determined that 

repowering B–253 to natural gas 

constitutes RACT and EPA proposes to 

concur with the state’s RACT analysis. 

Based on the attainment modeling, 

described herein, for the B–253 control 

measures combined with the 30-day SO2

emission limit for B–83 and B–325, the 

area is projected to show attainment of 

the 1-hour SO2 standard. EPA believes 

the attainment plan provides for 

attainment through the adoption and 

implementation of Tennessee’s RACT/ 

RACM emission control strategy. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude 

that the state has satisfied the 

requirement in section 172(c)(1) to 

adopt and submit all RACM as needed 

to attain the standards as expeditiously 

as practicable. 

D. New Source Review (NSR) 

Tennessee’s SIP-approved NSR rules 

for nonattainment areas (NNSR) are at 

TAPCR 1200–03–09–.01(5), last 

approved by EPA on July 30, 2012. See 

77 FR 44481. These rules provide for 

appropriate NSR for SO2 sources 

undergoing construction or major 

modification in the Sullivan County 

Area without need for modification of 

the approved rules. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to conclude that this 

requirement is met for this Area through 

Tennessee’s existing NSR rules. 

E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 

The CAA section 172(c)(2) requires 

the SIP provide reasonable further 

progress towards attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS. Regarding part D 

nonattainment plans, section 171(1) of 

the CAA defines RFP as the annual 

incremental reduction in emissions of 

the relevant pollutant as are required for 

the purpose of ensuring attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS by the applicable 

date. As discussed above, Tennessee’s 

2008 regional haze SIP required 

Eastman implement BART at B–253 

(Boilers 25–29). The State revised its SIP 

to establish an alternative BART option 

to repower/convert all five coal-fired 

boilers at B–253 to natural gas units and 

changed the compliance deadline to the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS attainment date or 

October 4, 2018.21 TDEC and Eastman 

indicated that the size and complexity 

of the repowering required additional 

time to ensure the conversion was 

technically feasible. Tennessee’s control 

strategy to reduce SO2 emission and 

attain the 2010 standard as 

expeditiously as practicable include the 

repowering of the five coal-fired boilers 

at B–253 and imposing an SO2 emission 

limit for the nine coal-fired boilers for 

B–83 and B–325. Eastman established a 

repowering timeline for B–253 listed in 

Table 3 below and in Tennessee’ SO2

attainment SIP. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR B–253 REPOWERING

Boiler Date 22 Activity 

25 ........................ 1st Quarter(Q1), 2014 ................... Complete; startup date was April 23, 2014. 

27 ........................ 1st and 2nd Quarter in 2016 ......... Equipment mobilization, six-week conversion and demobilization; pre-outage construction conducted 4th quarter of 2017 thru the 1st quarter in 2018. 

Conversion Complete—start-up date was April 23, 2016. 

28 ........................ 2nd and 3rd Quarter in 2016 ......... Equipment mobilization, six-week conversion and demobilization; pre-outage construction conducted 4th quarter of 2017 thru the 1st quarter in 2018. 

Conversion Complete—start-up date was October 2, 2016. 

29 ........................ 1st and 2nd Quarter in 2018 ......... Equipment mobilization, six-week conversion and demobilization; pre-outage construction conducted 4th quarter of 2017 thru the 1st quarter in 2018. 

Conversion Complete—start-up date was March 30, 2018. 

26 ........................ 3rd Quarter in 2018 ....................... Equipment mobilization, six-week conversion and demobilization; pre-outage construction conducted 4th quarter of 2017 thru the 1st quarter in 2018. 

Based on this projected timeline, 

Eastman intends to complete conversion 

of B–253 by the 3rd quarter of 2018 just 

before the October 4, 2018 attainment 

date. At the time of this proposed 

rulemaking, four of the five coal-fired 

boilers at B–253 (B–25, 27, 28, and 29) 

have been converted, are fully 

operational and currently subject to the 

natural gas fuel restriction established 

in Permit 966859F. According to 

Eastman, this compliance schedule was 

the most practicable to meet the BART 

requirements and attain the SO2

NAAQS to maintain the necessary steam 

and electricity for manufacturing 

operations. This is also due, in part, to 

the state required (Tennessee Code 

Section 68–122–110) annual boiler 

safety inspection and maintenance of all 

17 boilers at Eastman (including B–253) 

while ensuring necessary boiler capacity 

to sustain facility operations.23

According to Eastman, to complete the 

conversion of a boiler to natural gas the 

normal safety inspection is extended to 

6 weeks. Because of extended 

inspections and boiler shutdowns in 

2017, Eastman did not convert any 

boilers at B–253 in 2017. As indicated 

in Table 3, the final boiler (B–26) is 

scheduled for conversion in the 3rd 

quarter of 2018. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30621 

24EPA notes the second note to Table 6–2 list 

1,794 lbs/hr as the combined 30-day average 

allowable emission rate for B–83 and B–325 boilers, 

however, the correct emission rate is 1,753 lbs/hr. 

25See email from TDEC to EPA Region 4, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxic Management Division, Air 

Director Beverly Banister on June 6, 2018 included 

in the docket for this proposal (ID: EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0626). 

Tennessee’s May 2017 attainment SIP 

also provides estimated incremental 

emission reductions during the 

conversion of all five boilers at B–253. 

Table 6–2 in TDEC’s submittal 24

provides for projected change in actual 

emissions at Eastman over the duration 

of the repowering at B–253 and postcontrol after the attainment date. TDEC 

compared the pre-control emission rates 

for all boilers at B–83, B–325 and B–253 

for the period of April 1, 2012 through 

March 31, 2013 over the course of the 

conversion (interim years 2015 and 

2017) to post-control emissions (after 

October 4, 2018). Projected emission 

reductions after the completion of B– 

253 conversion and compliance with 

the SO2 emission limit for B–83 and B– 

325, are expected to be 66 percent 

compared to pre-control levels (with 

estimated incremental emission 

reductions of 11 percent and 39 percent 

in 2015 and 2017 respectively (after 

complete conversion of B–25 in 2014 

and B–27 and 28 in 2016). The average 

pre-control emissions from each B–253 

boiler was 677 pounds per hour (or 

2,965 tpy). TDEC estimates that each 

boiler conversion will reduce emissions 

by 2,960 tpy. 

The control measures for attainment 

of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS included in the 

State’s submittal have been modeled to 

achieve attainment of the 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. The adoption of new emissions 

limits, and compliance parameters and 

a natural gas restriction (for repowered 

B–253 boilers) require these control 

measures to achieve emissions 

reductions. Tennessee finds that the 

attainment plan requires the affected 

sources to implement control measures 

as expeditiously as practicable to ensure 

attainment of the 1-hour standard and 

therefore concludes that the attainment 

plan provides for RFP in accordance 

with the approach to RFP described in 

EPA’s guidance. EPA believes 

Tennessee’s SIP provides for 

incremental reduction in emissions to 

ensure reasonable further progress 

towards attainment of the standard and 

therefore concurs and proposes to 

preliminary conclude that the plan 

provides for RFP and therefore satisfies 

the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(2). 

F. Contingency Measures 

As noted above, EPA guidance 

describes special features of SO2

planning that influence the suitability of 

alternative means of addressing the 

requirement in section 172(c)(9) for 

contingency measures for SO2, such that 

in particular an appropriate means of 

satisfying this requirement is for the 

state to have a comprehensive 

enforcement program that identifies 

sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS 

and to undertake an aggressive followup for compliance and enforcement. 

Tennessee’s plan provides for satisfying 

the contingency measure requirement in 

this manner. 

Specifically, upon notification by 

Tennessee that a reference monitor for 

the Area has registered four validated 

ambient SO2 concentrations in excess of 

the NAAQS during calendar years 2019 

or 2020, or that a monitored SO2

NAAQS violation based on the design 

value occurred during calendar years 

2021 and beyond, Eastman will, without 

any further action by Tennessee or EPA, 

undertake a full system audit of all 

emission units subject to emission 

limits under this plan and submit a 

written system audit report to 

Tennessee within 30 days of the 

notification. Upon receipt of the system 

audit report, Tennessee will 

immediately begin a 30-day evaluation 

period to diagnose the cause of the 

monitored exceedance. This evaluation 

will be followed by a 30-day 

consultation period with Eastman to 

develop and implement operational 

changes necessary to prevent future 

monitored violations of the NAAQS. 

These changes may include fuel 

switching to reduce or eliminate the use 

of sulfur-containing fuels, physical or 

operational reduction of production 

capacity, or other changes as 

appropriate. If a permit modification is 

deemed necessary, Tennessee would 

issue a final permit within the statutory 

timeframes required in Tennessee 

Comprehensive Rules and Regulations 

1200–03–09, and any new emissions 

limits required by such a permit would 

be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

EPA concurs and proposes to approve 

Tennessee’s plan for meeting the 

contingency measure requirement in 

this manner. 

V. Additional Elements of Tennessee’s 

Submittal 

To verify that the 30-day limit is 

resulting in continued attainment of the 

1-hour SO2 standard in the Sullivan 

County area, Tennessee is establishing 

an additional safeguard within the 

nonattainment area by upgrading its 

existing SO2 ambient air monitoring 

network in the Sullivan County area. 

TDEC has committed to deploy 

additional ambient air monitors within 

the nonattainment area 25 to characterize 

expected areas of maximum 1-hour SO2

concentrations near the Eastman 

Chemical Plant. The State intends to 

designate the monitors as State/Local air 

monitoring stations in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58 and locate the monitors 

as close as possible to the areas of 

expected maximum concentration. 

These monitors will be submitted for 

approval by EPA as part of the state’s 

annual ambient air monitoring network 

plan. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

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 into Tennessee’s SIP a natural 

gas fuel restriction, a new SO2 emission 

limit and specified compliance 

conditions established in permits 

966859F and 070072F for monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting parameters 

for emissions units at Eastman Chemical 

Company. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate into the 

Tennessee SIP, a new 1,753 lbs/hr 30- 

day SO2 emission limit and operating, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting parameters all established at 

Conditions 1 thru 4 in Permit 070072F 

for Boilers 18–24 at B–83 and Boilers 

30–31 at B–325 and, a natural gas fuel 

restriction for Boilers 25–29 at B–253 

(after each natural gas conversion) 

established at Condition 6 in Permit 

966859F. The SO2 emission standards 

specified in each permit are the basis for 

the SO2 attainment demonstration in the 

SIP. EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and at EPA Region 4 office (please 

contact the person identified in the For 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

VII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s SO2 nonattainment SIP 

submission, which the State submitted 

to EPA on May 11, 2017, for attaining 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 

Sullivan County Area and for meeting 

other nonattainment area planning 

requirements. EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Tennessee’s 

nonattainment SIP meets the applicable 

requirements of sections 110(a), 172, 

191 and 192 of the CAA and regulatory 

requirements at 40 CFR part 51. This 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30622 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

SO2 nonattainment SIP includes 

Tennessee’s attainment demonstration 

for the Sullivan County Area and other 

nonattainment requirements for a RFP, 

RACT/RACM, NNSR, base-year and 

projection-year emission inventories, 

enforceable emission limits and 

compliance parameters and contingency 

measures. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve into the Tennessee 

SIP, Eastman Chemical’s enforceable 

SO2 emission limit and compliance 

parameters (monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting) from PSD construction 

permit 966859F (condition 6) and 

Permit No. 070072F (conditions 1–4) 

(see section IV.B.4.1). 

VIII. 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, Incorporation by 

Reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: June 19, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14097 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0435; FRL–9979–25– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Interstate Transport Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and Definition 

Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act), the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

approve portions of the Arkansas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

addressing the CAA requirement that 

SIPs address the potential for interstate 

transport of air pollution to significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2012 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states. EPA is 

proposing to determine that emissions 

from Arkansas sources do not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance by, any 

other state with regard to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to 

approve a revision to update 

incorporation by reference of NAAQS 

germane to this proposed action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R06– 

OAR–2017–0435, at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. Follow the 

online 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, please 

contact Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. For 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/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst, 214–665–6454, 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill 

Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS