Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0201-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Tennessee; Revisions to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
Posted Date: 2022-12-05T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74356-74361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26331]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0201; FRL-10437-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Control of Sulfur 
Dioxide Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC), through a letter dated June 1, 2021. The SIP 
submittal proposes to revise SIP requirements regarding the 
installation, maintenance, and termination of ambient air sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) monitors near large industrial SO2 
emitting sources in the State. EPA is proposing to approve these 
changes to the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) 
related to the control of SO2 emissions into the SIP because 
they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0201 at 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 www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josue Ortiz, Air Regulatory Management 
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 
562-8085. Mr. Ortiz can also be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Chapter 1200-3-14 of TAPCR regulates SO2 emissions 
within the State. Under the General Provisions of this chapter, TAPCR 
1200-03-14-.01(6) requires every owner or operator of certain large 
fuel burning installations and process emission sources to: (1) 
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Technical Secretary that their 
SO2 emissions will not interfere with attainment and 
maintenance of any air quality standard, and (2) install and maintain 
air quality sensors to monitor attainment and maintenance of ambient 
air quality standards in the areas influenced by their SO2 
emissions. This rule also allows owners or operators to petition the 
Technical Secretary to terminate ambient monitoring previously 
commenced provided certain conditions are met.
    As explained in more detail below, TDEC's June 1, 2021, SIP 
submittal proposes changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6), which is 
related to the control of SO2 emissions in the State of

[[Page 74357]]

Tennessee. Specifically, the submission proposes changes to Tennessee's 
ambient SO2 monitoring requirements for affected emission 
sources, including adding a provision to require the use of permitted 
allowable SO2 emissions for the demonstration that subject 
sources are required to make to show that their SO2 
emissions will not cause interference with attainment and maintenance 
of any air quality standard, the removal of a less than 20,000 tons per 
year (tpy) threshold to qualify for the termination of monitors, the 
addition of a data completeness requirement for the two years of 
ambient data collected prior to termination of monitoring, and the 
addition of an exemption for any fuel burning installation or process 
emission source located in an area in which the Technical Secretary 
operates one or more ambient SO2 air quality monitors in the 
area under the influence of the source's emissions. Tennessee's SIP 
submittal also provides a CAA section 110(l) non-interference 
demonstration to show that the proposed changes to paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6) will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment of any NAAQS and reasonable further progress (RFP), or any 
other applicable CAA requirement. Lastly, the SIP includes clarifying 
administrative changes to the regulatory language at paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6).

II. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision 
\1\ adopting changes to the General Provisions (Section 1200-03-14-.01) 
of TAPCR Chapter 1200-03-14, Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, which 
were adopted on June 3, 2009, and May 31, 2021. The SIP submission 
proposes to revise Tennessee's general provisions for characterizing 
SO2 emissions through ambient air monitoring near fuel 
burning installations \2\ with a specific rated capacity or process 
emission sources that emit a specific emission level of SO2. 
EPA proposes to approve this SIP revision because the Agency 
preliminarily finds that the changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) are 
consistent with the CAA and will not interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment of the SO2 NAAQS and RFP 
or any other applicable CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the June 1, 2021, SIP revision was received 
by the Regional Office on June 15, 2021. However, for clarity, EPA 
will reference the submission by its cover letter date of June 1, 
2021.
    \2\ TAPCR 1200-3-2-.01, General Definitions, defines ``fuel 
burning installation'' as one or more units of fuel-burning 
equipment where the products of combustion are discharged through a 
single stack or where the products of combustion are discharged 
through more than one stack the plumes from which tend to merge into 
a single plume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Tennessee's SIP Revision and EPA's Review

A. Summary of Existing Paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)

    The current SIP-approved version of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) 
applies to owners or operators of large fuel burning installations with 
a total rated capacity greater than 1,000 million British thermal units 
per hour (MMBtu/hr) or process emission sources that emit greater than 
1,000 tpy of SO2, starting in 1972 and thereafter. The 
following three subparagraphs of the rule describe the requirements 
these facilities must meet.
    As described in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6), 
these sources are required to demonstrate that they will not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS, either 
alone or in combination with other SO2 sources in the area.
    Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) requires subject 
sources to install and maintain ambient air SO2 monitors in 
areas influenced by their emissions. This subparagraph also allows 
sources to petition the Tennessee Technical Secretary \3\ to shut down 
these industrial SO2 monitors based on two years of air 
quality data within the area of influence of the source's emissions 
under certain conditions. As described in subparagraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b), such petitions may be granted only if the following three 
conditions are met: (1) the actual SO2 emissions from a fuel 
burning installation do not exceed 20,000 tpy; (2) the source is not 
located in a nonattainment area, and does not significantly impact a 
nonattainment area; and (3) the monitored SO2 concentrations 
in the vicinity of the source do not exceed 75 percent of the Tennessee 
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ TAPCR 1200-03-02-.01. General Definitions, defines 
``Technical Secretary'' as the Technical Secretary of the Air 
Pollution Control Board of the State of Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) requires 
that any calculations performed to demonstrate that sources, either 
alone or in contribution to other sources, will not interfere with 
attainment and maintenance of any primary or secondary air quality 
standard must be based on the assumption that the source is operating 
at maximum rated capacity.
    Sources in Tennessee that meet applicability requirements of 
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) include large fuel burning installations 
(identified by Tennessee as electric generating units (EGUs)) and 
process or manufacturing emission sources (non-EGUs). The existing 
subject sources consist of seven EGUs operated by the Tennessee Valley 
Authority (TVA) and three non-EGU sources. Tennessee includes in its 
submission a list of the EGUs and non-EGUs in the State that meet the 
applicability criteria of paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6).\4\ The list 
includes the SO2 attainment status for each area where these 
sources are located and each facility's ambient monitoring status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The list of affected sources can be found in Table 1, 
Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule Changes, under the CAA 
section 110(l) demonstration included with the State's submission. 
The June 1, 2021, submission, including the 110(l) demonstration, 
can be found in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Tennessee's June 1, 2021, Proposed Changes to Paragraph 
1200-03-14-.01(6)

    Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP submission proposes to amend Chapter 
1200-03-14, Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, by modifying paragraph 
(6) of Section 1200-03-14-.01, General Provisions. The submission also 
includes a CAA section 110(l) non-interference demonstration, discussed 
in more detail in Section III.C of this preamble, to show that the 
proposed changes to paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) in the Tennessee SIP 
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS and RFP or any other applicable 
CAA requirement. The following paragraphs discuss these revisions more 
specifically.
    Paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) is revised to replace ``calendar year 
1972 or any other calendar year thereafter'' with ``any calendar 
year.'' This change simply removes the obsolete year 1972 for which an 
affected source would have to reach the required rated capacity or the 
1,000 tpy emission threshold in order to be covered under this rule. 
Additionally, minor administrative changes were applied to this 
paragraph and a reference is added to point to the new applicability 
exception under subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) described below.
    As noted in Section III.A of this preamble, subparagraph (a) of 
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) requires affected sources subject to this 
rule to demonstrate that SO2 emissions from these sources 
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 
NAAQS, either alone or in combination with other SO2 
sources. The June 1, 2021, SIP submission adds a sentence to

[[Page 74358]]

subparagraph (a) stating that ``Any such demonstration must be based on 
the allowable emission rate specified in the source's construction or 
operating permit(s) and the source's maximum rated capacity.'' The 
requirement that the demonstration will be based on maximum rated 
capacity is moved from SIP-approved subparagraph (c) which is now 
deleted and reserved. Subparagraph (a) adds language that provides that 
any such demonstrations will be based on a source's allowable 
emissions, which is limited by the source's maximum rated capacity and 
any enforceable emission limits. The latter is determined by either 
requirements for new or modified sources under construction permit 
programs or by applicable requirements incorporated into title V 
operating permits for the sources covered under Rule 1200-03-
14-.01(6).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These applicable requirements include requirements under 
Tennessee's SIP, including limitations on SO2 emissions 
for fuel burning and process installations that are specified in 
TAPCR 1200-3-14-.02 and 1200-3-14-.03, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Section III.A of this preamble, subparagraph (b) of 
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) establishes the requirement for owners and 
operators of affected sources to install and maintain SO2 
air quality monitors, provides the criteria for reporting monitored 
SO2 data to the state air agency, and states that owners and 
operators may petition the Technical Secretary to terminate operation 
of a SO2 monitor based on two calendar years of air quality 
data and compliance with other specific criteria. See TAPCR 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b). The proposed amendments at subparagraph (b) clarify that 
owners or operators must provide two complete calendar years of data 
from the cited monitor in the area of influence of the SO2 
source. The revision also defines the term ``complete'' for the purpose 
of this subparagraph to mean that all data was collected in accordance 
with the collection, completeness, and quality assurance requirements 
specified in the affected source's title V operating permit.
    As noted in Section III.A of this preamble, subparagraph (b) of 
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6) also allows source owners or operators to 
petition to terminate operation of an SO2 monitor in the 
source's area of influence. The Technical Secretary may grant the 
petition if three criteria are met: (1) Actual SO2 emissions 
from a fuel burning installation do not exceed 20,000 tpy; (2) the 
source is located in an attainment area and does not significantly 
impact a sulfur dioxide nonattainment area; and (3) measurements of air 
quality in the vicinity of the source demonstrate that ambient 
SO2 levels do not exceed 75 percent of the Tennessee Ambient 
Air Quality Standards. The June 1, 2021, proposed amendment removes the 
first criterion, that actual SO2 emissions for fuel burning 
installations do not exceed 20,000 tpy, as a mandatory prerequisite to 
granting a petition to terminate operation of a monitor.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The criterion under 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1) was removed from 
the Tennessee state regulations on June 13, 2009. A copy of the 2008 
public notice for the amendment to 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1) is 
included in Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision which proposes to 
remove the provision from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the rule also add a new provision at 
subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) that exempts owners or operators from 
the requirement to install and maintain an SO2 ambient air 
monitor in the area under the influence of the applicable source, as 
required by 1200-03-14-.01(b), if the Technical Secretary operates one 
or more ambient SO2 air quality monitors in the area under 
the influence of the source's emissions.
    Tennessee explains in its section 110(l) non-interference 
demonstration that SO2 emission levels in the State have 
decreased significantly over the last ten years due to several air 
quality improvements such that the SIP revision will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. See section III.C, below, for 
EPA's review and analysis of Tennessee's SIP submission, including its 
non-interference demonstration.

C. CAA Section 110(l) Non-Interference Demonstration

    Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits approval of a SIP revision if 
the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. 
Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision includes a CAA section 110(l) 
non-interference demonstration for the removal of item (1) of 
subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b), which eliminates one of three 
criteria required for terminating operation of an industrial 
SO2 monitor, and for adding a new subparagraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(d), which would exempt subject sources from the requirement 
to install an SO2 monitor if the state air agency operates 
one or more SO2 monitors in the area under the influence of 
the source. Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration is intended to 
show that the changes to Rule 1200-03-14-.01(6) will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance, RFP, or any other applicable CAA 
requirement. Because Rule 1200-03-14-.01(6) is part of the Tennessee 
SIP, the requirements of CAA section 110(l) must be satisfied before 
EPA can approve changes to the existing ambient monitoring 
requirements. EPA has reviewed Tennessee's SIP revision and 
preliminarily finds the submission consistent with CAA section 110(l). 
EPA's review and assessment of Tennessee's CAA 110(l) demonstration is 
provided in Sections III.C.1 and 2.
1. CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration for Proposed Changes to 
Subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)
    Tennessee's June 1, 2021, submission includes a demonstration to 
show that removing the 20,000 tpy emission threshold criterion at item 
(1) of subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b), which is one of three 
required conditions that must be met for the Technical Secretary to 
grant approval of a petition to terminate operation of the 
SO2 monitor, is consistent with CAA section 110(l). 
Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration indicates that SO2 
levels in the State have dropped markedly over the last decade due to 
enforceable control measures and retirement of coal-burning 
installations, which have resulted in a significant reduction in 
SO2 emissions such that the removal of the 20,000 tpy 
threshold in item (1) of subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 standard 
in the State.
    Table 1 of the section 110(l) demonstration identifies seven EGUs 
and three non-EGU SO2 emitting sources in Tennessee as 
sources affected by the proposed changes to the requirements of 
paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6). Some of these facilities petitioned the 
Technical Secretary to terminate the operation of their respective 
SO2 industrial monitors, and those petitions were granted. 
Table 1 indicates that a petition to terminate the operation of 
SO2 monitors was granted to six facilities in 2008 and to 
one facility in 2019. Table 1 identifies two facilities, Eastman 
Chemical Company (Eastman) and Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc. (Nyrstar), as 
operating monitors, and the 110(l) demonstration also states that these 
are the only sources currently required to perform ambient monitoring 
pursuant to 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TDEC confirmed that Eastman no longer operates a monitor, so 
Nyrstar is the only facility currently subject to Rule 1200-03-
14-.01(6) with an industrial SO2 monitor. See emails 
dated June 10, 2022, included in the docket for this proposed 
action.

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

[[Page 74359]]

    The seven EGUs listed in Table 1 are TVA fossil plants Allen, Bull 
Run, Cumberland, Gallatin, John Sevier, Johnsonville, and Kingston. 
Actual SO2 emissions from each of these facilities were less 
than 20,000 tpy during most of the years between 2013 and 2019, as 
shown in Table 3 of Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration. The two 
facilities that exceeded 20,000 tpy during certain years, TVA 
Johnsonville and Gallatin, subsequently either retired their coal-
burning units or added SO2 emission controls.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ TVA Johnsonville's actual emissions where above 20,000 tpy 
in 2015, but all coal-fired units were retired by December 31, 2017. 
SO2 emissions for 2018 and 2019 were 2 and 3 tpy, 
respectively. Additionally, TVA Gallatin's actual emissions where 
above 20,000 tpy in 2013, but SO2 controls were installed 
at Gallatin Fossil Plant in 2016. Gallatin is subject to an 
SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu (40 CFR part 63 
Subpart UUUUU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the seven EGUs, TVA John Sevier, Johnsonville and Allen, 
have retired their coal-fired units or replaced them with natural gas 
combined cycle plants in 2012, 2017, and 2018, respectively. As shown 
in Table 3 of Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration, SO2 
emissions from these facilities have been extremely low following these 
changes.
    The other four EGUs, TVA Bull Run, Kingston, Cumberland, and 
Gallatin, still operate coal-fired units, but actual SO2 
emissions from all four of these sources show a declining trend and 
that emissions were well below the 20,000 tpy threshold from 2016 
through 2019.\9\ These facilities are all subject to an SO2 
emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu pursuant to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for coal and oil-fired 
EGUs at 40 CFR part 63 Subpart UUUUU. TDEC notes that compliance with 
40 CFR part 63 Subpart UUUUU limits emissions from Bull Run, Kingston, 
and Gallatin to less than 20,000 tpy based on the sources' allowable 
SO2 emissions at nominal heat input (i.e., heat input 
capacity by design).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Table 3 in Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration.
    \10\ See Table 4 in Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noting that TVA Cumberland has allowable SO2 emissions 
greater than 20,000 tpy despite the limitations of 40 CFR part 63 
Subpart UUUUU, Tennessee reviewed long-term emission trends of this 
facility to assess the likelihood that its emissions would ever exceed 
the threshold. The long-term SO2 emission trends for TVA 
Cumberland from 1995 through 2019 show that the source's SO2 
emissions have not exceeded 20,000 tpy since 1998 and that emissions 
have been below 10,000 tpy most years since 2011, and only slightly 
above 10,000 tpy in two years during this time period.\11\ Cumberland's 
2020 and 2021 actual SO2 emissions continue to be below 
10,000 tpy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Figure 1 in Tennessee's section 110(l) demonstration.
    \12\ See https://campd.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Eastman and Resolute FP, Inc. (Resolute) facilities are fuel-
burning installations and are the only existing non-EGU emission 
sources that would potentially have to comply with paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b)(1) to be eligible to request termination of their 
requirement to operate an SO2 monitor.\13\ The permitted 
allowable emissions of both facilities are limited to less than 20,000 
tpy, as described below. Eastman, however, would not meet the criteria 
for termination under 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) at this time because it is 
located in an SO2 nonattainment area (see Section II.C.2. 
for further discussion of Eastman).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Nyrstar facility, a zinc refinery in Clarksville, 
Tennessee, is not a fuel-burning installation and is not affected by 
subparagraph (b)(1) because it only applies to fuel burning 
installations.
    \14\ TDEC's 110(l) demonstration also includes information 
showing that Eastman's emissions are currently well below 20,000 
tpy. TDEC points to a combined emissions limit and replacing coal-
fired boilers with natural gas boilers at the B-253 boiler house 
resulting in an SO2 emission decrease from 21,246 tpy in 
2012 to 4,510 tpy in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Resolute facility is a paper mill in Calhoun (McMinn County), 
Tennessee. Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP revision indicates that 
SO2 emissions from Resolute's power boilers F1, F2, and F3 
are limited to 4,562 tons (total for all three boilers) during any 
period of 12 consecutive calendar months and that the multi-fuel boiler 
is limited to 489.7 tpy. Resolute's permitted allowable emission limits 
are also below the 20,000 tpy threshold proposed for removal at 
subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1), and the facility ceased burning 
coal in 2013, which further indicates that the facility's potential to 
exceed the 20,000 tpy threshold is unlikely in the future. For the two 
non-EGU fuel burning installations, Eastman and Resolute, allowable 
emissions are limited to less than 20,000 tpy, and recent add-on 
controls and additional planning considerations indicate the sources 
are not expected to exceed the emission threshold in the future.
    TDEC's review of sources subject to 1200-03-14-.01(6) indicates 
that enforceable SO2 emission reduction measures have 
resulted in a consistent downward trend of actual and/or allowable 
SO2 emissions that are well below the 20,000 tpy threshold 
at of 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1). The emission reduction measures include 
federal emission standards and emission limits based on repowering to 
natural gas. EPA's review of 2020 and 2021 actual SO2 
emissions data for the seven TVA sources also confirms a continuous 
declining trend in recent years.
    In the future, any new or modified fuel burning installations 
constructed in Tennessee that would meet the applicability criteria of 
1200-03-14-.01(6) would be subject to pre-construction permitting 
requirements and, potentially, New Source Performance Standards that 
would limit SO2 emissions. It is expected that many of these 
larger new or modified sources would be subject to major new source 
review (major NSR) and, in this process, would be required to show that 
their emissions will not interfere with the NAAQS, or if subject to 
nonattainment new source review, obtain offsetting emission reductions. 
In addition, the demonstration required under 1200-03-14-.01(6)(a) that 
SO2 emissions from these sources will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS, either alone or 
in combination with other SO2 sources, is still required for 
all subject sources.
    In summary, of the ten facilities Tennessee has identified as 
either affected by the proposed revisions to paragraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6): three (TVA John Sevier, Johnsonville and Allen) have retired 
their coal-fired units or replaced them with natural gas combined cycle 
plants and have extremely low SO2 emissions; three (TVA Bull 
Run, Kingston, and Gallatin) have allowable SO2 emissions 
less than 20,000 tpy based on compliance with 40 CFR part 63 Subpart 
UUUUU; one (TVA Cumberland) is also subject to 40 CFR part 63 Subpart 
UUUUU and has demonstrated actual SO2 emissions below or 
near 10,000 tpy since 2011; two (Eastman and Resolute) have permitted 
allowable emissions less than 20,000 tpy; and one (Nyrstar) is not 
subject to the 20,000 tpy threshold criterion. In addition, nine of 
these facilities have already removed their monitors. For these reasons 
and based on the supporting information stated earlier in this 
preamble, EPA preliminarily concurs that the proposed removal of the 
20,000 tpy emission threshold criteria at subparagraph 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b)(1) will not result in an increase in actual SO2 
emissions or deteriorate the current air quality in the vicinity of the 
applicable sources. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee's 
section 110(l) non-interference demonstration adequately shows that the 
proposed changes at

[[Page 74360]]

1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(1) will not interfere with any requirement 
concerning attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS, RFP, 
or any other CAA requirement in the State.
2. CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration for Proposed Addition of 
Subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d)
    Tennessee's June 21, 2021, SIP revision, at new subparagraph 1200-
03-14-.01(6)(d), proposes to update the State's SO2 
monitoring requirements by exempting any fuel burning installation or 
process emission source from the requirement to install an 
SO2 monitor if the source is located ``in an area in which 
the Technical Secretary operates one or more ambient sulfur dioxide air 
quality monitors in the area under the influence of the source's 
emissions.'' EPA understands that any SO2 air quality 
monitor operated by the Technical Secretary in lieu of an industrial 
monitor otherwise required by subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) must 
meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality 
Surveillance, and would be a state and local air monitoring station 
(SLAMS) as defined at 40 CFR 58.1.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See emails dated November 4, 2022, included in the docket 
for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, owners and operators of 
certain fuel-burning or process emission sources are directly affected 
by paragraph 1200-03-14-.01(6). Table 1 in Tennessee's June 1, 2021, 
SIP revision lists all the EGUs and process emission sources subject to 
1200-03-14-.01(6). This list includes Eastman, and Eastman is the only 
source on the list that is located in a nonattainment area and 
therefore would not meet the eligibility criteria for termination of a 
monitor pursuant to 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b)(2).
    To characterize SO2 concentrations in the Sullivan 
County nonattainment area around Eastman, Tennessee began operating 
four SLAMS SO2 monitors \16\ in the vicinity of Eastman, 
within the 3-km SO2 nonattainment area boundary, from 2016 
through 2019 in accordance with an EPA-approved quality assurance 
project plan and EPA's regulatory requirements at Appendix D to 40 CFR 
part 58. Specifically, 40 CFR part 58 establishes the monitoring 
requirements for state or local air pollution control agencies and 
owners or operators of proposed sources, including minimum network 
requirements (e.g., number and placement of monitors), operating 
schedules and methodology, and quality assurance procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The four SLAMS monitors include Ross N. Robinson (AQS ID: 
47-163-6001), on September 1, 2016; Skyland Drive (AQS ID: 47-163-
6002) on September 1, 2016; Happy Hill (AQS ID: 47-163- 6004) in 
October 2018 and Andrew Johnson Elementary School (AQS ID: 47-163-
6003) in January 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the June 1, 2021, submittal, TDEC has determined 
that because these requirements are more stringent than the 
requirements established in Eastman's title V operating permit, the 
proposed exemption at 1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS and RFP, or any other applicable 
requirement of the CAA. Additionally, Tennessee concludes that it does 
not expect any increase in SO2 emissions because of the 
proposed change.
    Nyrstar is a zinc refinery in Clarksville, Tennessee, and is the 
only existing SO2 emitting source in the State that 
currently monitors SO2 emissions pursuant to 1200-03-
14-.01(6). TDEC does not operate a monitor in the vicinity of Nyrstar.
    EPA believes Tennessee's existing SLAMS SO2 network in 
Sullivan County is properly sited and operated under an approved 
quality assurance project plan and in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, 
which provides prescriptive and technically credible methods for 
characterizing SO2 ambient air concentrations around the 
Eastman facility. Therefore, EPA has preliminarily determined that the 
current SO2 monitoring network near Eastman provides an 
acceptable alternative to the monitoring otherwise required under 1200-
03-14-.01(6)(b) and thus preliminarily concurs with Tennessee's non-
interference demonstration that the proposed addition of subparagraph 
1200-03-14-.01(6)(d) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance 
in the Sullivan County area.
    More generally, any SO2 air quality monitor operated by 
the Technical Secretary in lieu of an industrial monitor otherwise 
required by subparagraph 1200-03-14-.01(6)(b) must meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, and 
would be a state and local air monitoring station (SLAMS) as defined at 
40 CFR 58.1.\17\ EPA believes that SLAMS monitors provide an acceptable 
alternative to the monitoring otherwise required under 1200-03-
14-.01(6)(b), and notes that EPA approves state monitoring plans 
annually, which includes the placement of SLAMS monitors.\18\ Thus, EPA 
is proposing to approve the addition of subparagraph (d) to 1200-03-
14-.01(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See emails dated November 4, 2022, included in the docket 
for this proposed action.
    \18\ EPA's monitoring requirements are specified in 40 CFR part 
58 and are applicable to the state, and where delegated, to local 
air monitoring agencies that operate criteria pollutant monitors. 
Part 58 establishes specific requirements for operating air quality 
surveillance networks to measure ambient concentrations of 
SO2, including requirements for measurement methods, 
network design, quality assurance procedures, and the minimum number 
of monitoring sites designated as SLAMS. Appendix D to part 58 
addresses SO2 monitoring and calls for the overall SLAMS 
network to be designed to meet a minimum of six basic ambient air 
monitoring site types including, among other things, determining the 
highest concentrations expected to occur in the area covered by the 
network, determining representative concentrations in areas of high 
population density, and determining the impact on ambient pollution 
levels of significant sources or source categories on air quality. 
SLAMS produce data that are eligible for comparison with the NAAQS, 
and therefore, the monitor must be an approved federal reference 
method, federal equivalent method, or approved regional method 
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as described in Section I through 
III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 
TAPCR 1200-03-14-.01, General Provisions, state effective on May 31, 
2021, into the Tennessee SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, 
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at 
the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the 
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more 
information).

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons provided in this preamble, EPA is proposing to 
approve Tennessee's June 1, 2021, SIP submission revising paragraph 
1200-03-14-.01(6). The SIP revision changes Tennessee's SO2 
regulations that require applicable sources to demonstrate that the 
source's SO2 emissions will not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance and to install and maintain or terminate SO2 
ambient air monitors near these large SO2 emitting sources. 
The SIP submittal also includes a CAA section 110(l) non-interference 
demonstration that the proposed rule changes will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission

[[Page 74361]]

that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal 
regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing 
SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that 
they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes to 
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that 
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 29, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-26331 Filed 12-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P