Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0359-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Tennessee; Revisions to Knox County Portion of State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2016-09-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65313-65315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22761]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0359; FRL-9952-73-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN; Revisions to the Knox County Portion of 
the TN SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

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), on January 11, 2016. The proposed revision was 
submitted by TDEC on behalf of the Knox County Department of Air 
Quality Management, which has jurisdiction over Knox County, Tennessee. 
The revision that EPA is proposing for approval amends the Knox County 
Air Quality Management Department's regulations, which are part of the 
Tennessee SIP, to address EPA's startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
(SSM) SIP call for Knox County. EPA is proposing approval of the 
January 11, 2016, SIP revision because the Agency has determined that 
it is in accordance with the requirements for SIP provisions under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0359 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9644. Ms. Sanchez can 
also be reached via

[[Page 65314]]

electronic mail at sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing today?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Tennessee SIP at Knox 
County Regulation Section 32.0, ``Use of Evidence.'' The revision would 
remove the existing text of provision Section 32.1(C), which states: 
``A determination that there has been a violation of these regulations 
or orders issued pursuant thereto shall not be used in any lawsuit 
brought by any private citizen.'' This text would be replaced with 
``(Reserved).'' TDEC submitted the January 11, 2016, SIP revision to 
address EPA's final action entitled ``State Implementation Plans: 
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's 
SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and 
SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 
Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 
2015), hereafter referred to as the ``SSM SIP Action.''

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    On June 30, 2011, the Sierra Club (the Petitioner) filed a petition 
for rulemaking with the EPA Administrator, asking EPA to take action on 
specific provisions in the SIPs of 39 states. The petition included 
interrelated requests concerning state rule treatment of excess 
emissions by sources during periods of SSM. Exemptions from emission 
limits during periods of SSM exist in a number of state rules, some of 
which were adopted and approved into SIPs by EPA many years ago. The 
petition alleged that SSM exemptions undermine the emission limits in 
SIPs and threaten states' abilities to achieve and maintain compliance 
with national ambient air quality standards, thereby threatening public 
health and public welfare. The Petitioner requested that EPA either (i) 
notify the states of the substantial inadequacies in their SIPs and 
finalize a rule requiring them to revise their plans pursuant to CAA 
section 110(k)(5) (referred to as a ``SIP call''), or (ii) determine 
that EPA's action approving the implementation plan provisions was in 
error and revise those approvals so that the SIPs are brought into 
compliance with the requirements of the CAA pursuant to CAA section 
110(k)(6).
    On February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12459), EPA proposed an action that 
would either grant or deny the Sierra Club petition with respect to 
each of the SIP provisions alleged to be inconsistent with the CAA. 
That proposal summarizes EPA's review of all of the provisions that 
were identified in the petition, providing a detailed analysis of each 
provision and explaining how each one either does or does not comply 
with the CAA with regard to excess emission events. For each SIP 
provision that appeared to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed 
to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to 
meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA 
section 110(k)(5) of the CAA.
    On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed the final SSM SIP 
Action. That action responds to the Sierra Club petition by granting it 
with respect to the provisions determined to be deficient and denying 
it with respect to the others. The final action responds to all public 
comments received on the proposed action and calls for 36 states to 
submit corrective SIP revisions by November 22, 2016, to bring 
specified provisions into compliance with the CAA. In addition, the 
final action reiterates EPA's interpretation of the CAA regarding 
excess emissions during SSM periods and clarifies EPA's longstanding 
SSM Policy as it applies to SIPs.
    With regard to the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP, the 
Petitioner objected to Regulation 32.1(C), arguing that the provision 
prevents required reports of SSM conditions from being used as evidence 
in citizen suits, thereby undermining the express authorization of 
citizen enforcement actions under the CAA. After consideration of 
public comments on the SSM SIP proposal, EPA agreed that the Knox 
County rule is inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of CAA 
sections 113(e)(1), 114(c) and 304 and the credible evidence rule \1\ 
for the reasons fully explained in Section IX.E.11 of the SSM SIP 
proposal. Therefore, EPA determined in its final SIP call action that 
Knox County Regulation 32.1(C) is substantially inadequate to meet CAA 
requirements and thus issued a SIP call requiring the State to submit a 
corrective SIP revision addressing this provision. See 80 FR 33965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 51.212(c); see also ``Credible Evidence Revisions,'' 
62 FR 8314 (Feb. 24, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Why is EPA proposing this action?

    In the SSM SIP Action, EPA granted the Sierra Club's petition with 
respect to Knox County Regulation 32.1(C), finding this provision 
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. Today's action, if 
finalized, would remove the existing text of this provision from Knox 
County's EPA-approved SIP regulation. EPA is proposing to find that 
this revision is consistent with the CAA and that it adequately 
addresses the SSM SIP call with respect to the Knox County portion of 
the Tennessee SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference the Knox County Regulation 32.0 entitled ``Use of Evidence,'' 
effective November 12, 2015, which replaces the language previously 
included in Section 32.1(C) with ``(Reserved).'' EPA has made, and will 
continue to make, these materials generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact 
the person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' 
section of this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Tennessee SIP revision consisting 
of replacing the language in Section 32.1(C) currently in the EPA-
approved SIP for Knox County with ``(Reserved).'' EPA is proposing 
approval of the January 11, 2016, SIP revision because the Agency has 
determined that it is in accordance with the requirements for SIP 
provisions under the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a

[[Page 65315]]

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: September 13, 2016.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-22761 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P