```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12587-12596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5193]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0666-201052; FRL-9277-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Tennessee; Redesignation of 
the Knoxville 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment for 
the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on 
July 14, 2010, and amended on September 9, 2010, from the State of 
Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution Control Division, to redesignate the 
Knoxville, Tennessee 8-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 
The Knoxville, Tennessee 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area comprises 
Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier Counties in their 
entireties, and the portion of Cocke County that falls within the 
boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Knoxville Area'' or ``Area''). EPA's approval of 
the redesignation request is based on the determination that the State 
of Tennessee has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set 
forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), including the determination 
that the Knoxville Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Additionally, EPA is approving a revision to the Tennessee State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 
plan for the Knoxville Area that contains the new 2024 motor vehicle 
emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 
volatile organic compounds (VOC). This action also approves the 
emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan. As part of 
this final action, EPA considered the adverse comments received; a 
response to comments is included in this final action.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective March 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0666. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although

[[Page 12588]]

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann or Royce Dansby-Sparks, 
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Jane 
Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029 or via electronic mail 
at spann.jane@epa.gov. Royce Dansby-Sparks may be reached by phone at 
(404) 562-9187 or via electronic mail at dansby-sparks.royce@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for the actions?
II. What are the actions EPA is taking?
III. Why is EPA taking these actions?
IV. Response to Comments
V. What are the effects of these actions?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On July 14, 2010, the State of Tennessee, through TDEC, submitted a 
request to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the Tennessee SIP revision 
containing a maintenance plan for the Area. In an action published on 
October 7, 2010 (75 FR 62026), EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's 
plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the 
emissions inventory submitted pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(3); and 
the NOx and VOC MVEBs for the Knoxville Area contained in 
the maintenance plan. At that time, EPA also proposed to approve the 
redesignation of the Knoxville Area to attainment. Additional 
background for today's action is set forth in EPA's October 7, 2010, 
proposal.
    The MVEBs included in the maintenance plan are as follows:

                Table 1--Knoxville Area VOC and NOX MVEBs
                   [Summer season tons per day (tpd)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...........................................................     36.32
VOC...........................................................     25.19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its October 7, 2010 proposed action, EPA noted that the adequacy 
public comment period on these MVEBs (as contained in Tennessee's 
submittal) began on June 15, 2010, and closed on July 15, 2010. No 
comments were received during the public comment period. Thus, EPA 
deemed the new MVEBs for the Knoxville Area adequate for the purposes 
of transportation conformity on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 55977).
    As stated in the October 7, 2010, proposal, this redesignation 
addresses the Knoxville Area's status solely with respect to the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS, for which designations were finalized on April 30, 
2004 (69 FR 23857).
    In this final rulemaking, EPA is also noting minor corrections that 
the State of Tennessee made on September 2, 2010, and September 9, 
2010, to amend its July 14, 2010, submittal. The changes reflect minor 
corrections to total values in several data tables for data consistency 
throughout the submittal. In addition, area source emissions inventory 
information for Knox County that was inadvertently omitted in the 
original submittal was added to Appendix A. The corrected submittal can 
be found in the docket EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0666 on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. EPA's proposed action, published on 
October 7, 2010 (75 FR 62026), and today's final action, are not 
affected by these minor corrections. EPA is also noting a typographical 
error in the October 7, 2010, proposed rule. The last entry in Table 8 
on page 62039 of the proposed rule should read ``Non-road mobile source 
total (MLA)'' instead of ``Non-road mobile source total,'' to 
distinguish the 2007 commercial marine vessels, locomotives and 
aircraft emissions from other non-road emission sources. See 75 FR 
62039. EPA does not believe this minor typographical error affected the 
ability of the public to comment on this action because the actual 
inventory numbers were accurate and the public was provided with 
sufficient information to comment on the proposed actions.
    EPA reviewed ozone monitoring data from ambient ozone monitoring 
stations in the Knoxville Area for the ozone seasons from 2007-2009. 
These data have been quality-assured and are recorded in Air Quality 
System (AQS). The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average for 2007, 2008, 
and 2009, and the 3-year average of these values (i.e., design values), 
are summarized in Table 2 of this final rulemaking. Preliminary 
monitoring data for the 2010 ozone season indicate that the Area is not 
violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on data from 2008-2010. These 
preliminary data are available in the Docket for today's action 
although it is not yet certified.

                    Table 2--Design Value Concentrations for the Knoxville 8-Hour Ozone Area
                                            [Parts per million, ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Eight-hour design values (ppm)
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
             County                    Site name        Monitor ID                                     2008-2010
                                                                      2005-2007  2006-2008  2007-2009      **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anderson........................  Freels Bend Study      470010101-1      0.080      0.077      0.072      0.070
                                   Area.
Blount..........................  Look Rock, GSMNP..     470090101-1      0.086      0.085      0.079      0.077
                                  Cades Cove, GSMNP.     470090102-1      0.070      0.072      0.069      0.069
Jefferson.......................  1188 Lost Creek        470890002-1      0.084      0.081      0.076      0.074
                                   Road.
Knox............................  9315 Rutledge Pike     470930021-1      0.081      0.081      0.077      0.071
                                  4625 Mildred Drive     470931020-1      0.088      0.088      0.082      0.076
Loudon..........................  1703 Roberts Road.      47105109-1      0.085      0.082      0.077      0.073

[[Page 12589]]

 
Sevier..........................  Cove Mountain,          47155101-1      0.082      0.082      0.079      0.076
                                   GSMNP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Based on preliminary data as of November 7, 2010 (this data comprises the 2010 ozone season). The actual
  design value cannot be calculated until the data is quality assured and formally submitted to EPA sometime in
  mid-2011.

II. What are the actions EPA is taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving: (1) Tennessee's emissions 
inventory which was submitted pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(3); (2) 
Tennessee's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area, 
including MVEB's (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for 
redesignation to attainment status); and, (3) Tennessee's redesignation 
request to change the legal designation of the Knoxville Area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 
maintenance plan is designed to demonstrate that the Knoxville Area 
will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2024. EPA's 
approval of the redesignation request is based on EPA's determination 
that the Knoxville Area meets the criteria for redesignation set forth 
in CAA, sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, including EPA's determination 
that the Knoxville Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's 
analyses of Tennessee's redesignation request, emissions inventory, and 
maintenance plan are described in detail in the October 7, 2010, 
proposed rule (75 FR 62026).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving 
also includes 2024 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the Knoxville 
Area. In this action, EPA is approving these NOX and VOC 
MVEBs for the purposes of transportation conformity. For regional 
emission analysis years that involve the year 2024 and beyond, the 
applicable budgets (for the purpose of conducting transportation 
conformity analyses) are the new 2024 MVEBs.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Knoxville Area has attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and has also determined that all other criteria for 
the redesignation of the Knoxville Area from nonattainment to 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have been met. See CAA 
section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements is that the Knoxville 
Area have an approved plan demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. EPA is also taking final action to approve the maintenance 
plan for the Knoxville Area as meeting the requirements of sections 
175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In addition, EPA is approving the 
emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of 
the CAA. Finally, EPA is approving the new NOX and VOC MVEBs 
for 2024 as contained in Tennessee's maintenance plan for the Knoxville 
Area because these MVEBs are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 
ozone standard in the Knoxville Area. The detailed rationale for EPA's 
findings and actions are set forth in the proposed rulemaking and in 
other discussion in this final rulemaking. EPA received multiple 
comments from one commenter (hereafter referred to as the 
``Commenter'') which were generally adverse. The comments are 
summarized and responded to below.

IV. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the October 7, 2010, proposed 
approval to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The comments focused on provisions in the 
Tennessee SIP regarding start-up, shutdown and malfunction emissions 
(sometimes referred to as SSM or excess emissions) that were not 
changed as part of the redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP 
submittal. The comments focused on provisions that the Commenter 
believes are ``inextricably linked'' to the redesignation, and as a 
result, the Commenter concludes that these provisions ``have the 
potential to undermine the Knoxville Area's maintenance of the 1997 
NAAQS for ozone.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A full set of the comments is provided in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of the Official Compilation Rules & Regulations of 
the State of Tennessee (Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs.) identified by the 
Commenter, and a summary of the comments, are as follows. Some of the 
comments address the same State or Local provisions, but each comment 
is summarized individually.
    First, the Commenter identified Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-
20-.07(1) and (3). The Commenter believes that these provisions should 
be changed ``to clarify that all excess emissions are violations 
regardless of cause'' and notwithstanding any discretionary decision 
made by Tennessee regarding whether the violation is ``excused.'' The 
Commenter believes the ``excuse'' language included in the above-cited 
provisions is ``sufficiently ambiguous that it should be revised.'' The 
Commenter also raised concerns with the discretion afforded to the 
Technical Secretary to determine whether excess emissions are 
``violations'' and that such a determination might negatively affect 
EPA or a citizen in pursuing enforcement of such excess emissions as 
violations.
    Second, the Commenter again identified Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 
1200-3-20-.07, further elaborating on the discretionary determination 
that the Technical Secretary could make regarding excess emissions and 
whether such emissions are violations. The Commenter stated that ``the 
SIP contains no regulatory standard whatsoever that defines how the 
Technical Secretary's discretion should be exercised.'' The Commenter 
identifies five criteria enumerated in a February 15, 1983, Memorandum 
from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and 
Radiation (EPA) to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, regarding 
Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (1983 Bennett Memorandum). The Commenter explains that 
Tennessee's rules do not address criteria four and five identified by 
EPA in the 1983 Bennett Memorandum. The discussion in the comments 
suggests that all five criteria may be met by the Tennessee rules; 
however, this hinges on Tennessee's interpretation and implementation 
of its rules. Thus, the Commenter appears concerned that if the rules 
were interpreted or implemented in a certain

[[Page 12590]]

way, the rules may not be consistent with the 1993 Bennett Memorandum.
    Third, the Commenter identified Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rules 1200-
3-5-.02(1) and 1200-3-20-.07(1) regarding visible emissions and raised 
concerns that these rules ``create an exception for visible emissions 
levels.'' The Commenter explained that when these provisions are 
``incorporated into a permit, this rule operates as a blanket exemption 
for opacity violations.'' The comment also raises a concern about 
discretion on the part of the Technical Secretary to exempt a 
facility's excess emissions and states that these provisions are 
``automatic exemptions'' that the Commenter does not agree are 
consistent with EPA's interpretation of the CAA. The Commenter 
explained that Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-5-.07(1) must be 
amended so that excess visible emissions due to startup and shutdown 
are subject to enforcement and that Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) should be 
eliminated entirely because the exceptions provided in that rule are 
``entirely inconsistent'' with EPA's interpretation of the CAA.
    Fourth, the Commenter identified Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-
3-20-.06 as ambiguous about whether scheduled shutdown of air pollution 
control equipment is an excuse for excess emissions. The Commenter 
recommended that this provision be amended to clarify that scheduled 
maintenance is not an excuse for excess emissions unless the owner or 
operator can prove that better scheduling for maintenance and better 
operation and maintenance practices could not have prevented the 
violation. The Commenter cited to the 1983 Bennett Memorandum for 
support for this comment.
    Fifth, the Commenter identified Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-
20-.03 as a concern because it provides exceptions to the notification 
provisions regarding excess emissions. The Commenter explained that all 
owners/operators should be required to give notice for all excess 
emissions and Rule 1200-3-20-.03 should be amended to require such 
notice.
    Sixth, the Commenter identified provisions in the Knox County Air 
Pollution Control Regulations (Knox Co Regulations) that raise 
concerns. The identified provisions are Knox Co Regulations 32.1(C) and 
34.1(A) and (C). With regard to 32.1(C), the Commenter explained that 
this regulation should clarify the effect of an administrative 
determination on the capacity of citizens to bring a citizen suit on 
the same issue. With regard to 34.1(A) and (C), the Commenter explained 
that this regulation should state that advance notice and reports of 
excess emissions do not excuse such emissions.
    Seventh, the Commenter submitted two comments on what was described 
as rule changes made by Tennessee that had been submitted to EPA as SIP 
revisions. The main focus of the comments appears to be that, ``the 
inclusion of overly-broad SSM provisions in the SIP undermines the 
integrity of the State's emissions forecast and can threaten NAAQS 
compliance.'' As a result, the Commenter suggests that EPA should 
condition any redesignation of the Knoxville Area on Tennessee's 
modification of its regulations as outlined in the comment letter.
    EPA's Response. As a point of clarification, the issue before EPA 
in the current rulemaking action is a redesignation for Knoxville to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard--including the maintenance 
plan. The SIP provisions identified above and in Commenter's letter are 
not currently being proposed for revision as part of the redesignation 
submittal. Thus, EPA's review here is limited to whether the already 
approved provisions affect any the requirements for redesignation in a 
manner that would preclude EPA from approving the redesignation 
request. Because the rules cited by the Commenter are not pending 
before EPA and/or are not the subject of this rulemaking action, EPA 
did not undertake a full SIP review of the individual provisions. It 
has long been established that EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in 
approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the September 4, 1992, 
John Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 
426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in 
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 
12, 2003).
    There are two main rules identified by the Commenter. Tenn. Comp. 
R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-20 is a rule entitled, ``Limits on Emissions Due 
to Malfunctions, Start-Ups and Shutdowns.'' The other rule, Tenn. Comp. 
R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-5 is part of Tennessee's visible emissions 
rules. Rule 1200-3-20 was first approved into the SIP in 1980 with a 
revision in 1982. Rule 1200-3-5 was first approved into the SIP in 1972 
and has undergone numerous revisions, with the most recent occurring in 
1997. As noted above, the Commenter has also identified Knox Co. 
Regulations 32.1(C) and 34.1(A) and (C). These rules were initially 
incorporated into the SIP in 1972 and subsequently revised in the late 
1980s. In the context of today's rulemaking, the Commenter appears to 
suggest that the cited State and County rules may impact maintenance of 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS due to flaws in the emissions forecasts 
because of possible future actions by Tennessee to excuse excess 
emissions as violations.
    Following EPA's receipt of the comments, EPA contacted Tennessee 
and Knox County, requesting their interpretations of their respective 
rules per the issues identified by the Commenter. On November 18, 2010, 
Tennessee responded to EPA explaining that:

    Tennessee considers all excess emissions events, including 
events for which the Technical Secretary elects not to pursue 
enforcement action, to be violations of the Tennessee Air Pollution 
Control Regulations and the Tennessee Air Quality Act. No provision 
in Chapter 20 prohibits the Technical Secretary from taking 
enforcement action for excess emissions (including excess emissions 
resulting from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events), and 
paragraph 1200-3-20-.09 of the SIP specifically states that no 
provision in Chapter 20 shall limit the authority of the Technical 
Secretary to enforce the SIP or the obligation of an air contaminant 
source to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Tennessee notes that EPA's 
enforcement authorities are established pursuant to CAA [section] 
113, and a decision by the Technical Secretary to excuse a violation 
does not limit EPA's authority to take enforcement action for 
violations of the Act. Similarly, the authority of citizens to 
enforce the requirements of the Act pursuant to CAA [section] 304 is 
not limited by the Technical Secretary's decision.

    Letter from Barry Stephens, Director, Division of Air Pollution 
Control to Gwen Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator, November 18, 
2010. This letter affirms that Tennessee does not provide for any 
``blanket exemptions'' for emissions. Further, Tennessee does not 
construe its rules to limit either EPA or citizen enforcement 
regardless of a decision by the State pursuant to its own enforcement 
discretion.
    With regard to Knox County, a letter was provided from Lynne A. 
Liddington, Director of Air Quality Management to Gwen Keyes Fleming, 
Regional Administrator, on November 22, 2010. In that letter, Knox 
County first clarified the rules that are currently in effect in Knox 
County. The rules currently in effect in Knox County are not the SIP-
approved rules, which are the rules that are Federally enforceable; the 
Commenter focused on the SIP-approved rules (which are the Federally-
enforceable rules). Knox County's response is still relevant here 
because Knox County addresses two key

[[Page 12591]]

concerns of the Commenter--excuse of violations by the County and 
citizen rights to pursue such violations. Knox County cited to 
Regulation 34.8, which states, ``Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to allow the air contaminant source to violate the ambient 
air quality standards nor limit the authority of the Director and/or 
board to institute actions under other sections of these regulations.'' 
The letter further underscored that EPA and citizen enforcement of the 
CAA is guaranteed by the CAA itself. Specifically, Knox County stated, 
``EPA is granted oversight and enforcement abilities through the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) Section 113 and no decision by the [Knox County Air 
Quality Management] Director limits EPA's authority to take enforcement 
action for violations of the CAA. The authority of citizens to bring 
enforcement suits is guaranteed by CAA Section 304.''
    The letters from the State and County confirm EPA's interpretation 
of the SIP, i.e., that a determination of a State or County official 
regarding whether to pursue a violation of a SIP requirement, does not 
excuse that violation as a ``violation,'' and would not affect EPA's or 
a citizen's right to enforce such a violation.\2\ EPA further notes, 
despite the fact that these rules have been approved into the SIP for 
many years, that the Commenter cites to no cases in which a court has 
interpreted these rules as a bar to EPA or citizen enforcement. For 
these reasons, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that these provisions 
may impact the enforceability of the emission reductions relied on in 
the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although EPA interprets the SIP in the same manner as 
indicated by the State and the County, EPA recognizes that the cited 
language is not as clear as would be ideal. EPA would encourage the 
State and County to clarify the language in any future revisions to 
these provisions of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, in response to concerns expressed by the Commenter 
that SSM emissions might affect the ability of the Area to maintain the 
NAAQS, EPA evaluated the application of these provisions to the largest 
relevant source in the Area--Tennessee Valley Authority's Bull Run 
facility--which is the source of approximately 76 percent of the 
NOX emissions in the inventory. EPA's evaluation found that 
the facility includes SSM emissions as part of the emission information 
reported to EPA under the CAA title IV requirements (the Acid Rain 
program), and the associated obligations for monitoring. EPA reviewed 
some of the reported SSM events for that facility for 2007 (through the 
Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) Web site), and concluded that the 
emission inventory submitted to EPA by Tennessee appears consistent 
with the CAMD data (i.e., it appears that the emission inventory 
accounts for start SSM events at the Bull Run facility).\3\ As a 
result, it appears that at least with regard to the largest 
NOX source in the Knoxville Area, the emissions inventory 
includes SSM events such that the projections for future maintenance 
incorporate consideration of historic SSM. With this background, below 
are more specific responses to Commenter's concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's analysis in this action is specific to the rulemaking 
at issue--the redesignation request for the Knoxville Area and the 
approval of the maintenance plan and other elements outlined in this 
final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-20-.07(1) and (3)

    Contrary to the Commenter's assertion, there is nothing in the 
plain text of the above-cited rules that provides any sort of blanket 
exemption. Rule 1200-3-20-.07(1) simply explains what reporting is 
required upon excess emissions events, and Rule 1200-3-20-.07(3) 
appears to limit the evidentiary effect of the excess emissions report 
for a company in defense of enforcement. Together, the plain text of 
the rules and the above-quoted explanation by Tennessee make clear that 
there is no blanket exemption for excess emissions included in Rule 
1200-3-20-.07(1) and (3). Thus, EPA does not see a basis for 
Commenter's claim that these rules compromise the emissions levels 
relied on to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-20-.07(1) (Enforcement Discretion 
Issue)

    The Commenter's focus here is on Rule 1200-3-20-.07(1) and 
specifically, the last phrase of the sentence that reads, ``[t]he owner 
or operator of the violating source shall submit within twenty (20) 
days after receipt of the notice of violation the following data to 
assist the Technical Secretary in deciding whether to excuse or proceed 
upon the violation.'' (Emphasis added.) While EPA agrees that this 
language could be more clearly phrased, as explained above, the State 
interprets this language not to excuse excess emissions as violations, 
but rather to establish its use of enforcement discretion in pursuing 
the violation in terms of an enforcement action. Specifically, the 
November 18, 2010, letter provided by Tennessee makes clear that 
Tennessee considers all excess emissions to be violations, but 
highlights that the State has enforcement discretion. In terms of the 
discretion and the consideration of the five elements cited by the 
Commenter (from the 1983 Bennett Memorandum), the items requested by 
Tennessee in Rule 1200-2-20-.07(2) do touch on the elements identified 
by EPA in the 1983 Bennett Memorandum.\4\ While the Tennessee rule does 
not include the precise language from EPA's Guidance Memoranda, 
information consistent with the criteria EPA identified in the 1983 
Bennett Memorandum are available to the State because such information 
must be submitted by sources as part of the excess emissions reports 
required by Tennessee's rule. In the absence of information indicating 
that Tennessee has inappropriately excused excess emissions as 
violations, and/or sources utilizing affirmative defenses to 
enforcement actions that are inconsistent with EPA's Guidance, EPA does 
not agree that today's rulemaking and the maintenance emissions 
analysis is undermined by the above-cited language in the Tennessee 
SIP. While EPA believes that the Tennessee rules could be more clearly 
drafted, there is no information demonstrating that Tennessee 
interprets its rules in a way that is inconsistent with the CAA and 
thus EPA does not believe that the rules would undermine the 
maintenance demonstration submitted by the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commenter appears focused on the 1983 Bennett Memorandum 
in the comments. Notably, this Memorandum should not be confused 
with other Memoranda issued by EPA, such as the September 20, 1999, 
Memorandum entitled, ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and 
Shutdown,'' which focuses on related issues but also on a source's 
affirmative defense in response to an enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) and 1200-3-20-.07(1)

    The Commenter's expressed concern focuses on the language in Rule 
1200-3-5-.02(1) that states, ``due allowance may be made for visible 
emissions in excess of that permitted in this chapter which are 
necessary or unavoidable due to routine startup and shutdown 
conditions.'' As an initial matter, EPA notes that the ``due 
allowance'' language of Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) cited above is preceded by 
the phrase, ``Consistent with the requirements of Chapter 1200-3-20.'' 
As discussed above, Tennessee's November 18, 2010, letter to EPA 
affirms that the State considers all excess emissions events to be 
violations and that no provision in Chapter 20 prohibits the Technical 
Secretary from taking enforcement action for excess emissions, 
including excess emissions resulting from SSM events. The

[[Page 12592]]

Commenter states that ``due allowance'' is not defined, and therefore 
appears to believe that this provision results in an automatic 
exemption from compliance with underlying emission limits. While EPA 
agrees that the meaning of the language in Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) is not 
clear based solely on the plain text, the Commenter has pointed to no 
evidence that the State has in fact interpreted this language to excuse 
sources from complying with emission limits during periods of startup 
and shutdown and EPA is not aware that the State has done so.
    EPA notes that visible emissions are generally associated with 
particulate mass emissions, not ozone. In that context, however, the 
Commenter explains that nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one of the 
components of visible emissions, is also a precursor for ground-level 
ozone. As noted above, the Commenter has not provided any evidence that 
the State has interpreted this provision in a manner that would 
undermine the 1997 ozone NAAQS maintenance plan and EPA does not have 
information indicating that Tennessee has acted to ``excuse'' such 
emissions under this provision. Furthermore, even if Tennessee were to 
interpret the provision in such a manner, there is no evidence that it 
might have a sufficient impact on emissions of NO2 (or any 
other pollutant) that could impact ozone maintenance in the Knoxville 
Area.\5\ Therefore, EPA has no reason to conclude that this provision 
will have an adverse effect on future maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As was noted earlier in this notice, TVA's Bull Run facility 
accounts for approximately 76.6 percent of the NOX (which 
includes NO2) emissions in this nonattainment area 
(pursuant to 2008 emissions estimates). Thus, it is the largest 
NOX emitter in the Area. The NOX emissions 
from Bull Run include excess emission events, consistent with 
Federal requirements. So in terms of NOX, EPA does not 
see a basis for concern regarding the NOX related 
emissions inventory data. As a result, the Commenter's point on 
NOX in this context appears unsupported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-20-.06

    Rule 1200-3-20-.06 requires advance notice of scheduled maintenance 
to the Technical Secretary. The Commenter appears to suggest that the 
above-referenced rule is vague because it is not clear whether giving 
advanced notice of maintenance is an excuse for excess emissions. EPA 
disagrees. This rule is simply a notification requirement and in the 
absence of regulatory language providing that such notification would 
exempt a source from compliance, EPA sees no support for the 
Commenter's concern. EPA supports the notification requirements--and 
notes that the more notifications that are required by the rules, the 
more transparency there is with regard to excess emissions. These types 
of notifications may support citizen and other enforcement of the SIP 
under the Act because without the notifications, citizens and others 
may not always have knowledge about the excess emissions. Therefore, 
EPA rejects the Commenter's contention, and concludes that this 
provision will have no adverse impact on continued maintenance after 
the Area is redesignated.

5. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. Rule 1200-3-20-.03

    The Commenter asserts that this rule includes exceptions for 
required notifications for excess emissions and that it should be 
revised to eliminate the exceptions and require reporting for all 
excess emissions. The rule begins by stating that, ``[w]hen any 
emission source, air pollution control equipment, or related facility 
breaks down in such a manner as to cause the emission of air 
contaminants in excess of the applicable emissions standards contained 
in these regulations, or of sufficient duration to cause damage to 
property or public health, the person responsible for such equipment 
shall promptly notify the Technical Secretary of such failure or 
breakdown and provide a statement giving all pertinent facts, including 
the estimated duration of the breakdown.'' The rule also includes some 
limited exceptions to the notice provision, such as, ``[v]iolations of 
the visible emission standard which occur for less than 20 minutes in 
one day [* * *] need not be reported.'' Further exceptions are also 
identified for certain emissions in attainment or unclassifiable areas. 
While the rule does provide for exceptions to certain notifications of 
malfunctions, EPA notes that the excuse from notification is not an 
excuse from compliance with the applicable emission limit. Thus, these 
notification exceptions do not undermine the current emissions 
inventories and projections. EPA notes that the rule cited above is one 
of general applicability and many times, individual permit conditions 
may require additional reporting. This is precisely the case with the 
largest NOX emitter in the Area--TVA Bull Run (which must 
comply with the CAA title IV reporting requirements). While EPA 
believes it is possible that the rule could be clarified or improved; 
EPA does not agree that the rule undermines the maintenance plan for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the Knoxville Area or requires 
revision prior to the Area's final redesignation.

6. Knox County SIP Regulations

    With respect to Knox County SIP regulations, the Commenter concedes 
that no provision ``overtly creates excuses for excess emissions,'' but 
suggests some changes that the Commenter believes would improve the 
clarity of the regulations. While EPA agrees that there is language in 
the Knox County regulations that could be clarified, the Commenter has 
provided no support for the proposition that these regulations would 
undermine the ability of the Knoxville Area to maintain the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS in accordance with the submitted maintenance plan. In fact, the 
Commenter appears to admit such by recognizing that the rules do not 
excuse compliance for periods of excess emissions. EPA notes the 
following with regard to the specific Knox County regulations 
identified by the Commenter. With regard to the notification elements 
from Knox Co Regulation 34.1(A) and (C), EPA supports their requirement 
for notification of excess emissions. Knox County Rules 34.1(A) and (C) 
require advance notice of scheduled maintenance to the Director and 
notifications regarding facility breakdowns that cause violations, but 
they provide no exemption from standards. As set forth above, EPA 
believes that there is no basis for interpreting notice provisions as 
providing relief from compliance with emissions limitations in the 
absence--as is the case here--of any specific regulatory language 
providing such relief. Furthermore, EPA has no information indicating 
that Knox County has interpreted this regulation such that the 
notification was construed as an exemption. In fact, as was explained 
earlier, Knox County sent EPA a letter dated November 22, 2010, 
affirming that no decision by Knox County limits EPA or citizen 
authority to take enforcement action for violations of the CAA and that 
nothing in the County's rules shall be construed to allow an air 
contaminant source to violate the ambient air quality standards nor 
limit the authority of the Director and/or board to institute actions. 
The other Knox County rules cited by Commenter fall into the same 
category--the rules themselves contain no language suggesting that 
there is any automatic or blanket exemption for excess emission.
    In terms of the Commenter's overall stated concern, the record and 
EPA's proposal provide further supporting information (75 FR 62026) 
regarding the

[[Page 12593]]

attainment and projected emission inventories. Specifically, in EPA's 
proposed approval of the redesignation and the associated maintenance 
plan, EPA explained its rationale for the approval of the maintenance 
plan and redesignation request based on the criteria required by the 
CAA, the implementing regulations, and EPA's longstanding guidance for 
redesignating areas from nonattainment to attainment. EPA evaluated the 
emissions reductions in association with the maintenance plan and fully 
considered whether it was reasonable to believe that these reductions 
are ``permanent and enforceable'' measures to support continued 
maintenance through the initial maintenance period.\6\ The base year or 
``attainment level'' emissions for the Knoxville Area as identified in 
the State's submission and EPA's proposed approval are 135.19 tpd for 
NOX and 112.28 tpd for VOC. Also, as provided in Tables 3 
and 4 in the proposed rule, through the end of the maintenance period 
(i.e., 2024), emission reductions realized through Federal, State and 
local measures are projected to result in emission levels of 79.08 tpd 
for NOX and 85.11 tpd for VOC. This indicates a 41.5 percent 
reduction in NOX and a 24.2 percent reduction in VOC for the 
Knoxville Area beyond the levels that brought the Area into attainment 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Thus, EPA believes that its 
analysis of Knoxville's ability to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
is conservative and supported by the evidence provided.

                                                          Table 3--Knoxville Area NOX Emissions
                                                                   [Summer season tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Summary of NOX emissions (tpd)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Nonroad                                      Change
                              Year                                 Point       Area      Onroad   (excluding   Nonroad     Total      Safety      from
                                                                                                     MLA)       (MLA)                 margin     2007 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007...........................................................      42.69       2.07      71.83       13.16       5.44     135.19  .........  .........
2010...........................................................      42.65       2.15      63.10       12.17       5.03     125.10      10.09       -7.5
2013...........................................................      42.94       2.29      54.36       10.51       4.34     114.44      20.75      -15.3
2016...........................................................      43.56       2.50      45.62        8.74       3.61     104.03      31.18      -23.0
2020...........................................................      44.30       2.60      33.96        7.21       2.98      91.05      44.14      -32.7
2024...........................................................      45.11       2.68      22.29        6.37       2.63      79.08      56.11      -41.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Emissions are for Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Sevier and onroad emissions for Cocke County.
MLA = Commercial Marine Vessels, Locomotives and Aircraft.

    \6\ Section 175A(a) requires that the initial maintenance plan 
submitted to support a redesignation demonstrate maintenance at 
least 10 years after EPA's approval. Section 175A(b) requires that 
this maintenance plan be updated 8 years after EPA approval to 
extend the original maintenance plan for an additional 10 year 
period.

                                                          Table 4--Knoxville Area VOC Emissions
                                                                 [Summer season in tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Summary of VOC emissions (tpd)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Nonroad                                      Change
                              Year                                  Point       Area      Onroad    (exclud-   Nonroad     Total      Safety   from 2007
                                                                                                    ing MLA)    (MLA)                 margin       %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................................................       7.32      33.25      36.77      34.26       0.68     112.28
2010............................................................       7.17      34.21      33.53      31.05       0.62     106.58       5.70       -5.1
2013............................................................       7.37      35.23      30.29      26.47       0.52      99.88      12.40      -11.0
2016............................................................       7.88      36.64      27.05      22.07       0.44      94.08      18.20      -16.2
2020............................................................       8.64      38.40      22.72      18.04       0.35      88.15      24.13      -21.5
2024............................................................       9.53      40.24      18.39      16.62       0.33      85.11      27.17      -24.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Emissions are for Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, Sevier and onroad emissions for Cocke County. MLA = Commercial Marine Vessels,
  Locomotives and Aircraft.

    On the first page of the comment letter, the Commenter states that 
``[w]hile emissions of [NOX] and [VOCs] have not caused 
NAAQS violations during the past few years at the monitoring locations, 
the required `permanent and enforceable' measures that constrain 
emissions in the future cannot guarantee maintenance in light of the 
SSM provisions in the SIP.'' In light of the Commenter's general 
reference to permanent and enforceable measures, the following provides 
general information regarding those measures in the SIP that support 
today's action.
    The section of the proposed action entitled ``Criteria (3)--The Air 
Quality Improvement in the Knoxville Area 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 
Nonattainment Area Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in 
Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable 
Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions,'' on pages 62034-62035 of EPA's October 7, 
2010, proposed rulemaking, there is an explanation of the permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions that are anticipated in the Knoxville 
Area over the maintenance period.
    For the reasons provided above, EPA does not agree that there is 
any reasonable basis for concluding that the provisions cited by the 
Commenter will affect the Area's ability to maintain the 1997 ozone 
NAAQS over the maintenance period, nor that they in any way undercut 
the maintenance plan

[[Page 12594]]

that the State has submitted and EPA intends to approve. However, EPA 
notes that if for any reason the Area does experience a violation of 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS after redesignation, the contingency 
measures contained in the maintenance plan associated with this 
redesignation would require Tennessee to implement measures to correct 
the violation. This accords with Congress's judgment, as reflected in 
the CAA, that even an approved maintenance plan could not guarantee 
that a violation might not occur after redesignation. Congress thus 
required in section 175A for contingency measures to, at a minimum, 
help correct such violations. See the discussion of contingency 
measures in Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2004).
    Moreover, as is discussed in the proposal, while a violation of the 
NAAQS is the ultimate trigger for implementation of contingency 
measures to correct the violation, other contingency measures contained 
in the maintenance plan for Knoxville provide for early action to 
prevent violation. For example, the maintenance plan includes a 
contingency measure to launch an investigation if emissions projections 
indicate that a violation of the 3-year design value may be imminent. 
Another set of contingency measures are triggered where emissions 
projections exceed expectations by greater than 10 percent under the 
specified metrics. Thus, in addition to providing for prompt correction 
of any violations that may occur, the maintenance plan/contingency 
measures include provisions to account for potential future changes to 
emissions other than what was forecast. See the Contingency Measures 
Section of EPA's October 7, 2010, proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 62037, 
for further information.

V. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation 
of Anderson, Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier Counties in 
their entireties, and the portion of Cocke County that falls within the 
boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park from nonattainment 
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is modifying the 
regulatory table in 40 CFR 81.343 to reflect a designation of 
attainment for these full and partial counties. EPA is also approving, 
as a revision to the Tennessee SIP, Tennessee's plan for maintaining 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Knoxville Area through 2024. The 
maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy possible 
future violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes 
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2024 for the Knoxville Area. 
Additionally, this action approves the emissions inventory for the 
Knoxville Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

VI. Final Action

    After evaluating Tennessee's redesignation request and considering 
the comments on the proposed rule, EPA is taking final action to 
approve the redesignation and change the legal designation of Anderson, 
Blount, Jefferson, Knox, Loudon, and Sevier Counties in their 
entireties, and the portion of Cocke County that falls within the 
boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park from nonattainment 
to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Through this action, EPA 
is also approving into the Tennessee SIP, the 1997 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area, which includes the new 
NOX MVEBs of 36.32 tpd and VOC MVEBs of 25.19 tpd for 2024. 
Additionally, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory for the 
Knoxville Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. In a previous 
action, EPA found the new Knoxville Area MVEBs adequate for the 
purposes of transportation conformity (75 FR 55977, September 15, 
2010). Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy 
finding for the MVEBs, the transportation partners are required to 
demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant 
to 40 CFR 93.104(e).
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause 
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This 
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of 
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the Area from certain CAA 
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective 
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which 
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days 
after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or 
relieves a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an 
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise 
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the 
rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, 
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that 
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes 
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of various requirements 
for the Knoxville Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 
U.S. C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of 
publication of this action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area 
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources 
beyond those required by State law. A redesignation to attainment does 
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in 
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that 
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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 CAA. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive 
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

[[Page 12595]]

     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and,
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this final rule does not have Tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 9, 2011. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Oxides of nitrogen, Volatile organic 
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``8-Hour Ozone 
Maintenance Plan for the Knoxville, Tennessee Area'' at the end of the 
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                                    EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          State
 Name of non-regulatory SIP provision     Applicable geographic or      effective       EPA approval date                     Explanation
                                             nonattainment area           date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the  Anderson, Blount, Jefferson,      7/14/2010  3/8/2011 [Insert          For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
 Knoxville, Tennessee Area.             Knox, Loudon, and Sevier                     citation of
                                        Counties, and the portion of                 publication].
                                        Cocke County that falls
                                        within the boundary of the
                                        Great Smoky Mountains
                                        National Park.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.343, the table entitled ``Tennessee--Ozone (8-Hour 
Standard)'' is amended under by revising the entry for ``Knoxville, 
TN'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.343  Tennessee.

* * * * *

                                       Tennessee--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Designation \a\                         Category/
                                       ----------------------------------------------------    classification
            Designated area                                                                ---------------------
                                                Date \1\                    Type             Date \1\     Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Knoxville, TN:
    Anderson County...................  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.
    Blount County.....................  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.
    Cocke County (part)...............  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.
    (Great Smoky Mtn Park)............  ........................  ........................  .........  .........
Jefferson County......................  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.
Knox County...........................  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.
Loudon County.........................  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.
Sevier County.........................  This action is effective  Attainment..............  .........  .........
                                         3/8/2011.

[[Page 12596]]

 
 
                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-5193 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```