[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28582-28586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13146]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO<INF>2</INF>), and 2010 
Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e00011a0f1c070f0000074003070d060b020b2e0b1e0f40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb5b4afbaa9b2bab5b5b2f5b6b2b8b3beb7be9bbeabbaf5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 28583]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires 
states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may 
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility 
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major 
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and 
operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the 
state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to 
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may 
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a 
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, 
states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program 
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides 
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the 
RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing 
whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress 
in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 
39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable 
progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 
2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA 
amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the 
CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or 
states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected 
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and 
maintain BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was 
``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, including 
Tennessee, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative 
to BART for EGU emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> in 
designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR 
as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. 
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur 
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina 
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to 
replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject 
states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NOx emissions in 27 eastern states (and the 
District of Columbia), including Tennessee, that contributed to 
downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and/or NO<INF>X</INF> in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO<INF>2</INF>, annual 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and/or ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> by each covered 
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two 
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally 
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that 
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent 
that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 
these grounds, on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA promulgated a FIP to 
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the 
deficiencies in Tennessee's regional haze plan. EPA finalized a limited 
approval and a limited disapproval of Tennessee's regional haze plan on 
April 24, 2012 (77 FR 24392). EPA's limited approval finalized the 
determination that Tennessee's regional haze plan met the remaining 
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the 
RHR.\3\ EPA's limited disapproval was issued due to the deficiencies in 
Tennessee's regional haze plan created by the plan's reliance on CAIR 
for certain regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the April 24, 2012, final rule, EPA took action on the 
entire Tennessee regional haze plan submitted on April 4, 2008, 
except for the BART determination for Eastman Chemical Company 
(Eastman). On November 27, 2012, EPA finalized approval of the BART 
requirements for Eastman that were provided in the State's April 4, 
2008, regional haze plan, as later modified and supplemented on May 
14, 2012, and May 25, 2012. See 77 FR 70689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide 
that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a 
given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented 
through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program 
implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART 
alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 
Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR 
have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for 
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 
(July 6, 2012). EPA has approved SIPs from several states relying on 
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 47393 
(October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 2012) for 
Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. 
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating 
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of 
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United 
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to 
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the 
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to 
a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and 
Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOx budgets for 11 states. This 
litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, 
from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were 
originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to 
January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally 
promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule 
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination 
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative 
to the application of source-

[[Page 28584]]

specific BART.\5\ EPA has determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic 
scope resulting from the actions EPA has taken or expects to take in 
response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand do not affect the 
continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a BART alternative, 
because the changes in geographic scope would not have adversely 
affected the results of the air quality modeling analysis upon which 
EPA based the 2012 determination. EPA's September 29, 2017, 
determination was based, in part, on EPA's final action approving a SIP 
revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016)) adopting Phase 2 
annual NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> budgets equivalent to the 
federally-developed budgets and on SIP revisions submitted by Georgia 
and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 2 annual NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> budgets equivalent to the federally-developed 
budgets.\6\ Since that time, EPA has approved the SIP revisions from 
Georgia and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) and 82 
FR 47936 (October 13, 2017), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks 
Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed November 28, 
2017).
    \6\ EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South Carolina SIP 
revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866), 
and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP submittal seeks to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the April 24, 2012, limited disapproval of 
its regional haze plan submitted on April 4, 2008, by replacing 
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve 
Tennessee's request that EPA amend the State's regional haze plan by 
replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve 
this SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or 
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred 
to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure 
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address 
basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, 
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and 
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More 
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing 
requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) 
lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure 
SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The 
contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon 
the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the 
provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the 
time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new 
or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in 
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the 
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional 
approvals of the prong 4 portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP 
submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF>, 2010 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to full 
approvals, as discussed in section III of this document.\7\ All other 
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions 
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief 
background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided 
below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to 
the Federal Register documents cited in the following subsections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On June 15, 2017, EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 
portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 
1-hour NO<INF>2</INF>, 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>, and 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. See 82 FR 27428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Tennessee 
submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS on March 13, 2014. This proposed action only 
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ With the exception of the interstate transport requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the 
other portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> infrastructure submission were addressed in a 
separate action. See 81 FR 85410 (November 28, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO<INF>2</INF> at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour 
NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Tennessee 
submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour 
NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS on March 13, 2014. This proposed action only 
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for 
major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), 
and the interstate transport provisions of prong 4 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the other portions of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 
2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> infrastructure submission were addressed 
in a separate action. See 82 FR 3639 (January 12, 2017). On March 
18, 2015, EPA approved Tennessee's March 13, 2014, infrastructure 
SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 
2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). 
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS to 
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Tennessee submitted an 
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS on 
December 16, 2015. This proposed

[[Page 28585]]

action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ With the exception of the interstate transport requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the 
other portions of Tennessee's December 16, 2015, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
infrastructure submission were addressed in a separate action. See 
82 FR 21706 (May 10, 2017). No action has been taken with respect to 
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation 
plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from 
emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's 
efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes 
sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for 
infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\11\ The 2013 
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by 
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any 
contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility 
program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states 
that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the 
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for 
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant 
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP 
submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the 
requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission 
that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning 
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A 
fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from 
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with 
measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to 
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans 
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need 
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure 
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs 
for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed prong 4 and 
regional haze?

    As noted in the infrastructure SIP portion of Tennessee's November 
22, 2017, SIP revision, the State's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour 
NO<INF>2</INF> and 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> submission, and December 
16, 2015, 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> submission rely on the State 
having a fully approved regional haze plan to satisfy its prong 4 
requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved Tennessee's regional 
haze plan as the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's 
original regional haze plan on April 24, 2012, due to its reliance on 
CAIR. On December 7, 2016, Tennessee submitted a commitment letter to 
EPA to submit a SIP revision that revises its regional haze plan to 
replace reliance on CAIR with CSAPR for certain regional haze 
provisions.\12\ In its letter, Tennessee committed to providing this 
SIP revision within one year of EPA's final conditional approval of the 
prong 4 portions of the infrastructure SIP revisions. On June 15, 2017 
(82 FR 27428), EPA conditionally approved the prong 4 portion of 
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour 
NO<INF>2</INF>, 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>, and 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS based on this commitment letter from the State. 
In accordance with the State's December 7, 2016, commitment letter, 
Tennessee submitted a SIP revision on November 22, 2017, to replace 
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze 
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Tennessee's December 7, 2016, commitment letter is included 
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the State's November 22, 2017, SIP 
revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert EPA's 
previous action on Tennessee's regional haze plan from a limited 
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval 
of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's 
limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan. 
Specifically, EPA's approval of Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP 
revision would satisfy the SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART 
requirements and first implementation period SO<INF>2</INF> reasonable 
progress requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the 
requirement that a LTS include measures as necessary to achieve the 
state-adopted RPGs. Thus, EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for 
Tennessee which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to 
address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of 
Tennessee's regional haze plan. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 
requirements through a fully approved regional haze plan, EPA is 
therefore also proposing to convert the conditional approvals to full 
approvals of the prong 4 portion of Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-
hour NO<INF>2</INF> and 2010 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> submission, and 
December 16, 2015, 2012 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> submission.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: 
(1) Approve Tennessee's November 22, 2017, SIP submission to change 
reliance from CAIR to CSAPR in its regional haze plan; (2) convert 
EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Tennessee's April 4, 
2008, regional haze plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for 
Tennessee which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to 
address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of 
Tennessee's regional haze plan; and (4) convert EPA's June 15, 2017, 
conditional approvals to full approvals of the prong 4 portion of 
Tennessee's March 13, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO<INF>2</INF> and 2010 1-hour 
SO<INF>2</INF> submission, and December 16, 2015, 2012 annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> submission. All other applicable infrastructure 
requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will 
be addressed in separate rulemakings.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely 
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and remove 
a FIP and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
    <bullet> Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

[[Page 28586]]

    <bullet> Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory actions because these actions are either exempted or 
not significant under Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 
actions do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-13146 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>