Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28577 

1The major NSR program, established in parts C 

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

regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 

40 CFR 52.21, is a preconstruction review and 

permitting program applicable to new major 

stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants and 

major modifications at existing major stationary 

sources. A major modification is defined as any 

physical change in or change in the method of 

operation of a major stationary source that would 

result in a significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant and a significant net 

emissions increase of that pollutant from the major 

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

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

2EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 

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

Appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed 

of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor 

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

CAA and applies in areas that meet the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)— 

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

insufficient information to determine if the area 

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

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

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

The Minor NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not qualify as 

‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation 

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

these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0050; FRL–9979– 

66—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to 

New Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise 

New Source Review (NSR) regulations. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the portions of a SIP revision 

submitted by the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC), 

on May 28, 2009, that modify the 

definitions of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions.’’ This action is being 

proposed pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0050, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. 

Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers can be 

reached via telephone at (404) 562–9089 

or via electronic mail at akers.brad@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On May 28, 2009, TDEC submitted a 

SIP revision to EPA for approval that 

contains changes to Tennessee’s SIPapproved major NSR permitting 

regulations at Tennessee Air Pollution 

Control Regulations (TAPCR) 1200–3– 

9–.01—‘‘Construction Permits,’’ 

including the adoption of federal 

requirements and the modification of 

certain other provisions.1 In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of this SIP submission that 

make changes to the definitions of 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

Tennessee’s SIP-approved Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) regulations at TAPCR 1200–3– 

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

Quality Deterioration’’ and 1200–3–9– 

.01(5)(b)—‘‘Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

respectively.2 Tennessee’s NSR 

regulations at TAPCR 1200–3–9–-.01 

were last revised in the SIP on July 25, 

2013 (78 FR 44886). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28578 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

3See ‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment Area New Source Review (NSR): 

Reconsideration,’’ pp. 14–15, available at https://

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/ 

documents/petitionresponses10-30-03.pdf, and 

included in the docket for this proposed action. 

4EPA published rules on November 7, 2003 (68 

FR 63021) and June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), 

modifying the 2002 NSR Rule. Sometimes, these 

three rules are collectively referred to as ‘‘NSR 

reform.’’ For more information on NSR reform, see 

https://www.epa.gov/nsr/nsr-regulatoryactions#nsrreform. 

II. Background 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published revisions to the federal PSD 

and NNSR regulations. See 67 FR 80186 

(hereinafter referred to as the 2002 NSR 

Rule). These revisions included several 

major changes to the major NSR 

program, including the addition of an 

actual-to-projected-actual emissions test 

and the use of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions’’ for determining major NSR 

applicability for existing emissions 

units. For projects involving multiple 

existing emissions units, the definitions 

require the use of one consecutive 24- 

month period to determine baseline 

emissions for the emissions units being 

changed and allows for the use of 

different consecutive 24-month baseline 

periods for each regulated pollutant. See 

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

51.166(b)(47), and 52.21(b)(48). EPA 

included this language in the definitions 

because NSR is, and has always been 

treated as, a pollutant-specific program.3

On September 14, 2007, EPA 

approved SIP submittals from TDEC 

incorporating revisions to Tennessee’s 

major NSR regulations in response to 

the 2002 NSR Rule (as modified in 

subsequent EPA rulemakings).4 In 

defining ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

its major NSR regulations, Tennessee 

elected not to adopt the provision in the 

federal definitions that allows the use of 

different consecutive 24-month baseline 

periods for each regulated pollutant for 

projects involving multiple existing 

emission units. Therefore, Tennessee’s 

SIP-approved regulations only allow the 

same 24-month period to be chosen for 

all regulated NSR pollutants when 

calculating baseline actual emissions for 

major NSR applicability determinations 

for projects involving multiple 

emissions units. Compared to the 

federal definitions, Tennessee’s SIPapproved regulations offer less 

flexibility in determining baseline 

actual emissions for these projects. 

On May 28, 2009, Tennessee 

submitted a SIP revision that would, 

among other things, change the 

definitions of ‘‘baseline actual 

emissions’’ in its SIP-approved major 

NSR regulations to allow for the use of 

different 24-month periods for each 

regulated NSR pollutant for projects 

involving multiple emissions units, but 

only under certain limiting 

circumstances not included in the 

federal definitions. The text of 

Tennessee’s proposed changes to its 

SIP-approved definitions of ‘‘baseline 

actual emissions’’ is provided in section 

III along with EPA’s assessment under 

CAA section 110(l). Section 110(l) 

prohibits EPA from approving a SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) (as defined in section 

171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

III. Analysis of Tennessee’s Submittal 

Tennessee’s May 28, 2009, submittal 

revises the SIP-approved definitions of 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ at TAPCR 

1200–3–9–.01(4)(b)(45)(i)(III) and 1200– 

3–9–.01(4)(b)(45)(ii)(IV) for PSD, and 

1200–3–9–.01(5)(b)(1)(xlvii)(I)III and 

1200–3–9–.01(5)(b)(1)(xlvii)(II)IV for 

NNSR. The relevant portion of the SIPapproved definitions read as follows: 

‘‘For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a 

project involves multiple emissions units, 

only one consecutive 24-month period must 

be used to determine the baseline actual 

emissions for the emissions units being 

changed.’’ 

The proposed language reads as 

follows (strikethrough indicates 

language removed and underlined text 

indicates language added): 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28579 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP20JN18.007</GPH>

"For a regulated NSR pollutant, when a project involves multiple emissions units, 

ooly-one consecutive 24-month period must be used to determine the baseline 

actual emissions for the emissions units being changed. However, the Technical 

Secretary is authorized to allow the use of multiple, pollutant specific consecutive 

24-month baselines in determining the magnitude of a significant net emissions 

increase5 and the applicability of major new source review requirements if all of 

the following conditions are met: 

I. Construction of a new source

6 

or modification would become subject to 

major new source review if a single 2-year baseline is used for all 

pollutants. 

II. One or more pollutants were emitted during such 2-year period in 

amounts that were less than otherwise permitted for reasons other than 

operations at a lower production or utilization rate. Qualifying examples 

include, but are not limited to, the voluntary use of: 

A a cleaner fuel than otherwise permitted in a fuel burning 

operation (e.g., natural gas instead of coal in a multi-fuel boiler), 

5 The "baseline actual emissions" for a proposed project are considered when determining whether a "significant 

emissions increase" will occur. If a "significant emissions increase" is shown as a result of the project, then the "net 

emissions increase" is calculated, considering contemporaneous and creditable increases and decreases from 

unrelated projects to determine whether the project will result in a "significant net emissions increase." Thus, the 

baseline period referenced here is most relevant to the determination of a "significant emissions increase." 

6 Although the proposed revision refers to modifications and new sources, it does not affect new sources or new 

units because Tennessee's SIP-approved rules require new sources/units to use the actual-to-potential test- not the 

actual-to-projected-actual test- and the corresponding baseline actual emissions for new sources/units are set to 

zero. This is consistent with federal rules. The proposed revision only applies to projects that involve multiple 

existing emissions units. 
28580 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

Accordingly, a project involving 

multiple emissions units that would be 

subject to major NSR permitting under 

the current SIP-approved regulations 

would not be subject to these 

requirements under the revised 

definitions if it met the limiting criteria 

identified above for the use of pollutantspecific baseline periods. As noted 

above, EPA’s major NSR rules do not 

contain such limiting criteria. Under the 

federal major NSR rules, a state must 

adopt the federal definitions into its SIP 

unless the state’s definitions are more 

stringent than, or at least as stringent as, 

the federal definitions. See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1) and 51.166(b). EPA 

proposes to find that Tennessee’s 

revisions to its SIP-approved definitions 

of ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ are more 

stringent than the federal definitions 

given the limiting criteria and are 

therefore allowable changes to the 

State’s SIP-approved NSR program 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and 

51.166(b). 

As noted above, section 110(l) of the 

CAA prohibits EPA from approving a 

SIP revision that would interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and RFP (as defined in 

section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. The State is 

allowed to relax its SIP regulations as 

long as section 110(l) is met. EPA 

proposes to determine that the proposed 

changes to the Tennessee SIP, as 

described above, would not violate 

section 110(l) for the reasons discussed 

below. 

First, Tennessee’s proposed changes 

will maintain the State program at a 

more stringent level than the federal 

NSR requirements. Unlike the federal 

rules, Tennessee’s revised rules only 

allow for the use of different 2-year 

baseline periods under the limiting 

condition that ‘‘one or more pollutants 

were emitted during such 2-year period 

in amounts that were less than 

otherwise permitted for reasons other 

than operations at a lower production or 

utilization rate.’’ The revised rules then 

provide qualifying examples that would 

satisfy this condition, such as the 

voluntary use of cleaner fuels, lower 

volatile organic compounds coatings, 

improvements in control efficiency, 

addition of a control device, and 

alternate production methods, raw 

materials, or products that result in 

lower emissions of one or more 

pollutants. The permittee bears the 

burden of demonstrating that the 

limiting conditions of the regulation 

have been met, and if the demonstration 

is approved by the TDEC Technical 

Secretary, the demonstration and the 

Technical Secretary’s approval must be 

included in the permit record. 

Accordingly, Tennessee’s revised rules 

encourage sources to reduce emissions 

in order to qualify for the use of 

multiple, pollutant-specific baselines. 

EPA also believes that the impact, if 

any, on air quality as a result of the 

proposed change would be small given 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALSEP20JN18.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 28581 

8See footnote 6. 

9On May 12, 2017, TDEC submitted a plan to 

EPA to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 

Sullivan County. 

10Air quality design values for all criteria air 

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

11Tennessee’s SIP-approved minor NSR rules 

require a source impact analysis with modeling. See 

TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01(1)(f). These rules also require 

BACT for minor NSR sources in nonattainment 

areas. See TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01(5)(b)2.(ii). 

the nature of the actual-to-projectedactual test and the limited applicability 

of the multiple baseline provision for 

the following reasons. First, the 

definition of ‘‘projected actual 

emissions’’ provides that the owner or 

operator ‘‘[s]hall exclude, in calculating 

any increase in emissions that results 

from the particular project, that portion 

of the unit’s emissions following the 

project that an existing unit could have 

accommodated during the consecutive 

24-month period used to establish the 

baseline actual emissions under part 

(b)45. of this paragraph and that are also 

unrelated to the particular project, 

including any increased utilization due 

to product demand growth.’’ TAPCR 

1200–03–09–.01(4)(b)38.(i)(III). Under 

this provision, once the qualifying 

portion of any projected emissions 

increase is excluded, the result is the 

increase from the project. Accordingly, 

in most cases, the baseline actual 

emissions rate would not change the 

calculated emissions increase from an 

existing emissions unit. Second, the 

provision does not apply to new sources 

or new units at existing sources.8 Third, 

as it relates to existing emissions units, 

the change only applies to projects that 

involve multiple emissions units and 

only has a potential air quality impact 

on those projects that might otherwise 

have triggered PSD or NNSR 

applicability for more than one 

pollutant. Finally, the provision is 

further restricted to permittees who can 

demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the 

Technical Secretary, that emissions 

during the single baseline period were 

less than otherwise permitted for 

reasons other than operations at a lower 

production or utilization rate. In 

addition to narrowing the number of 

sources that qualify for the use of 

different baseline periods, this 

restriction also encourages the use of 

voluntary emissions reduction 

measures. 

Moreover, the State is currently 

attaining all of the NAAQS except for 

the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

NAAQS in a portion of Sullivan 

County.9 Previous nonattainment areas 

for other NAAQS have all been 

redesignated to attainment, as shown in 

Table 1. Air quality in Tennessee has 

been improving in recent years, and 

Table 1 includes the available margin 

between current air quality monitoring 

design values, in micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) and parts per billion 

(ppb), and the most current 

corresponding NAAQS in each 

redesignated (maintenance) area.10

Additionally, none of the monitors in 

Tennessee outside of the Sullivan 

County SO2 nonattainment area show 

violating air quality data for any 

NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT AIR QUALITY STATUS IN TENNESSEE FOR MAINTENANCE AREAS

Maintenance areas NAAQS for which 

area is maintenance Status Current NAAQS 2015–2017 DV 

Margin 

relative to 

current 

NAAQS with 

2014–2016 DV 

Chattanooga ................... 1997 annual PM2.5 (15.0 μg/m3) ..... Redesignated ... 12.0 μg/m3 .......... 9.0 μg/m3 ............ ¥3 μg/m3

(25.0%) 

Knoxville .......................... 2008 ozone (75.0 ppb) .................... Redesignated ... 70 ppb ................. 68 * ppb ............... ¥2 ppb (2.9%) 

Knoxville .......................... 1997 annual PM2.5 (15.0 μg/m3) ..... Redesignated ... 12.0 μg/m3 .......... 10.0 μg/m3 .......... ¥2 μg/m3

(16.7%) 

Knoxville .......................... 2006 24-hour PM2.5 (35 μg/m3) ...... Redesignated ... 35 μg/m3 ............. 34 μg/m3 ............. ¥1 μg/m3 (2.9%) 

Memphis ......................... 2008 ozone (75 ppb) ....................... Redesignated ... 70 ppb ................. 67 ppb ................. ¥3 ppb (4.3%) 

Sullivan County ............... 2008 lead (0.15 μg/m3) .................... Redesignated ... 0.15 μg/m3 .......... 0.01 μg/m3 .......... ¥0.14 μg/m3

(93.3%) 

* The TDEC relocated the Loudon Pope ozone site (AQS # 47–105–0108) to Loudon Elementary School (formerly Loudon Middle School, AQS 

# 47–105–0109) between the 2016 and 2017 ozone seasons, in accordance with the monitoring network plan. This is the combined DV between 

sites 47–105–0108 and 47–105–0109. 

Regarding the Sullivan County SO2

nonattainment area, the proposed 

change would not impact SO2

concentrations in this area because it is 

in nonattainment for only one pollutant. 

Tennessee’s revised rules only have a 

potential air quality impact in a 

nonattainment area with a multiple-unit 

project that could avoid NNSR through 

the use of different baseline periods for 

different pollutants. Therefore, in a 

nonattainment area such as Sullivan 

County where only one pollutant is 

subject to NNSR review, the revised rule 

has no impact. 

Additionally, any projects that would 

not qualify as major modifications 

under the revised definitions would still 

be subject to the preconstruction review 

and permitting requirements of 

Tennessee’s SIP-approved minor NSR 

regulations at TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01(1). 

Under the SIP, no construction permit 

shall be issued if approval to construct 

or modify the air contaminant source 

would violate ambient air quality 

standards, would cause a violation of 

any requirement under TAPCR 1200–3, 

would result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy, or 

would interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of NAAQS in a 

neighboring state. See TAPCR 1200–3– 

9–.01(1)(e).11 Therefore, the revision 

should not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance or any other requirement 

of the CAA because any project that 

would qualify for the use of different 

baseline periods would still be subject 

to the preconstruction review and 

permitting requirements of the SIPapproved minor NSR program. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the portions of TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01 

‘‘Construction Permits,’’ effective April 

24, 2013, that specifically revise the 

definitions of ‘‘baseline actual 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
28582 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

12The state effective date of the rule changes to 

the definitions of ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

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

2009. However, these changes to Tennessee’s rule 

are captured and superseded by the version of 

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

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

EPA approved portions of the April 24, 2013 

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

modified the state effective date at 40 CFR 

52.2220(c) accordingly. 

emissions’’ in Tennessee’s SIP-approved 

PSD and NNSR regulations as discussed 

above.12 EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of Tennessee’s May 28, 2009, 

SIP revision that change the definitions 

of ‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ in 

TAPCR 1200–3–9–.01,—‘‘Construction 

Permits,’’ as discussed above. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This action merely proposes to 

approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 8, 2018. 

Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0187; FRL–9979– 

62—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 

(Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the 

following four actions regarding the 

Tennessee State Implementation Plan 

(SIP): approve Tennessee’s November 

22, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to 

change reliance from the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain 

regional haze requirements; convert 

EPA’s limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Tennessee’s regional 

haze plan to a full approval; remove 

EPA’s Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) for Tennessee which replaced 

reliance on CAIR with reliance on 

CSAPR to address the deficiencies 

identified in the limited disapproval of 

Tennessee’s regional haze plan; and 

convert the conditional approvals of the 

visibility prong of Tennessee’s 

infrastructure SIP submittals for the 

2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to full 

approvals. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2018–0187 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can 

be reached by telephone at (404) 562– 

9031 or via electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS