[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41344-41361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13470]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0535; FRL-11020-01-R4]


Air Plan Approval; TN; 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Transport 
Infrastructure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Tennessee's July 31, 2019, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 
good neighbor provision requires each State's implementation plan to 
contain adequate provisions prohibiting the interstate transport of air 
pollution in amounts that will contribute significantly to 
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of a NAAQS in any other 
State. In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee 
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other State. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the July 31, 2019, SIP revision 
as meeting the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0535 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

[[Page 41345]]

submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams, 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. Mr. Adams can be reached via 
phone number (404) 562-9009 or via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Infrastructure SIPs
    B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 
Interstate Transport SIPs
III. Tennessee's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis
    A. State's Submission
    B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology
    C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation: Significant Contribution to 
Nonattainment
    1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
    2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
    3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
    4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
    5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in 
Tennessee
    6. Conclusion
    D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation: Interference With Maintenance of 
the NAAQS
    1. State Submission
    2. EPA Analysis
    3. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Infrastructure SIPs

    On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 
NAAQS with a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average 
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Whenever EPA 
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires 
States to make SIP submissions to provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This particular type of SIP 
submission is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' \1\ 
These submissions must meet the various requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2012, EPA decided to retain the current secondary NAAQS 
for SO2. Thus, the CAA section 110(a)(1) requirement to 
submit an infrastructure SIP for this secondary standard was not 
triggered. The secondary SO2 standard is 500 ppb averaged 
over three hours, not to be exceeded more than once per year. See 77 
FR 20218 (April 3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include 
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity 
in one State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will 
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another State. The two clauses of this 
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to 
nonattainment of the NAAQS) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance 
of the NAAQS).
    The Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation (TDEC) 
submitted a revision to the Tennessee SIP on July 31, 2019,\2\ 
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\3\ Updated transport modeling for the 
Eastman Chemical facility in Sullivan County, Tennessee, was completed 
and submitted to EPA on November 30, 2021 to supplement the July 31, 
2019 submission.\4\ EPA is proposing to approve TDEC's July 31, 2019, 
SIP submission because the State demonstrated that Tennessee will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with 
maintenance, of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other 
State. All other elements related to the infrastructure requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for 
Tennessee have been addressed in separate rulemakings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ TDEC's SIP revision was submitted August 1, 2019, through a 
transmittal letter dated July 31, 2019.
    \3\ On March 13, 2014, TDEC submitted a SIP revision addressing 
all infrastructure elements with respect to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS with the exception of prongs 1 and 2 of CAA 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    \4\ EPA officially received the supplemental file dated November 
30, 2021 on December 7, 2021.
    \5\ EPA acted on all other infrastructure elements for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Tennessee's March 13, 2014, SIP 
revision on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85410) and September 24, 2018 
(83 FR 48237).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background

    In this proposed action, EPA has considered information from the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in 
more detail in section III.C of this notice. For this reason, a brief 
summary of EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is included here.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ While designations may provide useful information for 
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that 
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind 
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has 
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
requires elimination of significant contribution and interference 
with maintenance in other states, and this analysis is not limited 
to designated nonattainment areas. Nor must designations for 
nonattainment areas have first occurred before states or the EPA can 
act under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See, e.g., Clean Air 
Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011); Final Response to 
Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the 
Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding 
facility in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS prior to issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required 
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or 
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. The 
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or 
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA 
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two 
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator 
has insufficient information to make these designations by that 
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing 
designations by up to one year.
    EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA Administrator signed the 
first round \7\ of designations (``Round 1'') \8\ for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16 
States as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). The EPA Administrator signed Federal 
Register notices for Round 2 designations \9\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 
45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870 (December 
13, 2016)). Round 3 designations \10\ were signed on December 21, 2017 
(83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)) and March 28, 2018 (83 FR 14597 (April 
5, 2018)).

[[Page 41346]]

Round 4 designations \11\ were signed on December 21, 2020 (86 FR 16055 
(March 26, 2021)) \12\ and April 8, 2021 (86 FR 19576 (April 14, 
2021)).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round 
of designations.''
    \8\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the 
Round 1 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \9\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the 
Round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \10\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to 
Round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \11\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to 
Round 4 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0037 and at EPA's website for 
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
    \12\ The Round 4 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations 
action was signed by former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on 
December 21, 2020, pursuant to a court-ordered deadline of December 
31, 2020. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with 
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, former Acting 
Administrator Jane Nishida re-signed the same action on March 10, 
2021, for publication in the Federal Register.
    \13\ On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately 
promulgated air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The 
DRR requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through 
air dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with 
sources that emitted in 2014 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of 
SO2, or that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by 
EPA or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state 
air agencies, by specified dates, could elect to impose federally 
enforceable emissions limitations on those sources restricting their 
annual SO2 emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide 
documentation that the sources have been shut down. EPA used the 
information generated by implementation of the DRR to help inform 
Round 4 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Round 1 and Round 2 of designations, EPA designated one 
SO2 nonattainment area and one unclassifiable area in 
Tennessee. In Round 1, EPA designated a portion of Sullivan County as 
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on air 
quality monitoring data.\14\ In Round 2, EPA designated Sumner County 
as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\15\ The 
remaining counties in Tennessee were designated as attainment/
unclassifiable in Round 3; therefore, no areas in Tennessee were 
designated in Round 4.\16\ Although the designations process is 
separate from action on Tennessee's SO2 transport SIP, EPA 
proposes the information relied on in the designations process can be 
helpful in evaluating Tennessee's SO2 transport obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See August 5, 2013, final rulemaking (78 FR 47191, 47204) 
and EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD): Tennessee--Area 
Designations for the 2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/tn-tsd.pdf.
    \15\ EPA designated Sumner County, Tennessee, as unclassifiable 
in Round 2 designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
a notice published July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45039). See also EPA's Final 
Technical Support Document: Tennessee--Area Designations for the 
2010 SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/r4_tn_final_designation_tsd_06302016.pdf. On September 29, 2020, 
TDEC submitted a request to redesignate Sumner County to attainment 
and to terminate DRR reporting requirements for TVA-Gallatin. On May 
25, 2021, the final rule to redesignate Sumner County as attainment/
unclassifiable was published (86 FR 27981). EPA did not receive any 
comments on the proposed rulemaking. EPA is not requesting review 
and comment on the redesignation for Sumner County, Tennessee, in 
this proposed action.
    \16\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Final Round 3 
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/38-tn-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also 
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Intended Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Relevant Factors Used To Evaluate 2010 1-Hour SO2 Interstate 
Transport SIPs

    Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point 
and nonpoint sources as is directly emitted fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and the precursors to ozone and PM2.5, 
interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport of 
PM2.5 or ozone because SO2 emissions usually do 
not have long-range transport in the atmosphere. The transport of 
SO2 relative to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is more 
analogous to the transport of lead (Pb) relative to the Pb NAAQS in 
that emissions of SO2 typically result in 1-hour pollutant 
impacts of greatest concern near the emissions source. However, ambient 
1-hour concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly with 
distance from the source as do 3-month average concentrations of Pb, 
because SO2 gas is not removed by deposition as rapidly as 
are Pb particles. Emitted SO2 has wider-ranging impacts than 
emitted Pb, but it does not have such wide-ranging impacts that 
treatment in a manner similar to ozone or PM2.5 would be 
appropriate. Accordingly, the approaches that EPA has adopted for ozone 
or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused, and the 
approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the source, 
to be appropriate for assessing SO2 transport. 
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a 
different approach.
    In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport 
analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 kilometer (km)-wide zone because the 
physical properties of SO2 result in relatively localized 
pollutant impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. 
Given the properties of SO2, EPA selected a spatial scale 
with dimensions from four to 50 km from point sources--the ``urban 
scale''--to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact 
downwind States.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, 
see 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how 
EPA applies these definitions with respect to interstate transport 
of SO2, see EPA's proposed rulemaking on Connecticut's 
SO2 transport SIP. See 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC identified a 50-km 
distance threshold to reflect the transport properties of 
SO2. TDEC used this 50-km threshold for the supporting 
analyses in the submission, and notes that this 50-km distance is the 
modeling domain limit of the EPA-recommended American Meteorological 
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) 
modeling system.
    Given the properties of SO2, EPA preliminarily agrees 
with Tennessee's selection of the urban scale to assess trends in area-
wide air quality that might impact downwind states. As discussed 
further in section III.B, EPA proposes that Tennessee's selection of 
the urban scale is appropriate for assessing trends in both area-wide 
air quality and the effectiveness of large-scale pollution control 
strategies at SO2 point sources. Tennessee's selection of 
this transport distance for SO2 is consistent with 40 CFR 
part 58, Appendix D, Section 4.4.4(4) ``Urban scale,'' which States 
that measurements in this scale would be used to estimate 
SO2 concentrations over large portions of an urban area with 
dimensions from four to 50 km. AERMOD is EPA's preferred modeling 
platform for regulatory purposes for near-field dispersion of emissions 
for distances up to 50 km. See Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51. Thus, EPA 
preliminarily concurs with Tennessee's application of the 50-km 
threshold to evaluate emission source impacts into neighboring states 
and to assess air quality monitors within 50 km of the State's border, 
which is discussed further in section III.C.
    As discussed in sections III.C and III.D, EPA first reviewed 
Tennessee's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the transport of 
SO2 to other States, the types of information used in the 
analysis, and the conclusions drawn by the State. EPA then conducted a 
weight of evidence analysis based on a review of the State's submission 
and other available information, including SO2 air quality 
for monitors and available emissions and/or source modeling for sources 
in Tennessee and in neighboring States within 50 km of the Tennessee 
border.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This proposed approval action is based on the information 
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not 
prejudge any other future EPA action or determinations regarding 
Tennessee's or any neighboring State's air quality status. Any such 
future actions, such as area designations under any NAAQS, will be 
based on their own administrative records and EPA's analyses of 
information that become available at those times. Future available 
information may include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and 
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the DRR and information 
submitted to EPA by States, air agencies, and third-party 
stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry representatives.

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

[[Page 41347]]

III. Tennessee's SIP Submission and EPA's Analysis

A. State Submission

    Through a letter dated July 31, 2019, TDEC submitted a revision to 
the Tennessee SIP addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. TDEC 
supplemented this submittal with updated transport modeling for the 
Eastman Chemical facility on November 30, 2021. Tennessee conducted a 
weight of evidence analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions 
from the State adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind States.
    TDEC concluded that the State is meeting its prong 1 and prong 2 
obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. TDEC based its 
conclusions for prongs 1 and 2 on: SO2 design values (DVs) 
\19\ for 2015-2017 and 2016-2018 along with the 99th percentile 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations for the years 2015 through 2018 at the 
air quality monitors in Tennessee and the surrounding States of 
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; declining SO2 
emissions trends in Tennessee from 2005 to 2014 (all source 
categories); \20\ the percent change in SO2 emissions by 
source category from 2005 to 2014; SO2 sources assessed in 
EPA's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations process which are 
located within 50 km of the State's border; and State and Federal 
regulations that establish requirements for sources of SO2 
emissions. Based on this analysis, the State concluded that emissions 
within Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
any other State. EPA's evaluation of Tennessee's submission is detailed 
in sections III.B, C, and D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A ``Design Value'' or DV is a statistic that describes the 
air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the 
NAAQS. The DV for the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is 
the 3-year average of annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour 
average concentrations for a monitoring site. For example, the 2019 
DV is calculated based on the three-year average from 2017-2019. The 
interpretation of the primary 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 
including the data handling conventions and calculations necessary 
for determining compliance with the NAAQS, can be found in Appendix 
T to 40 CFR part 50.
    \20\ Table 2 of Tennessee's SIP revision also provides 2017 data 
for the point source category only, which showed a 49,713.42 ton 
decrease from 90,283.03 tons in 2014 to 40,569.61 tons in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Evaluation Methodology

    EPA acknowledges the State's analysis in the July 31, 2019, 
submission as well as the supplemental modeling submitted on November 
30, 2021. EPA has evaluated this information, and further supplements 
the State's analysis of sources here to ensure there are no further 
SO2 emissions controls needed for meeting CAA interstate 
transport requirements. EPA proposes that a reasonable starting point 
for determining which sources and emissions activities in Tennessee are 
likely to impact downwind air quality in other States with respect to 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by using information in EPA's 
National Emissions Inventory (NEI).\21\ The NEI is a comprehensive and 
detailed estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria 
pollutant precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions 
sources, that is updated every three years using information provided 
by the states and other information available to EPA. EPA evaluated 
data from the 2017 NEI released in April of 2020, the most recently 
available, complete, and quality assured dataset of the NEI.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
    \22\ EPA evaluated the January 2021 version of the 2017 NEI. For 
more information, see the website: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, the majority of SO2 emissions in 
Tennessee originate from point sources.\23\ In 2017, the total 
SO2 emissions from point sources in Tennessee comprised 
approximately 93 percent of the total SO2 emissions in the 
State. The remaining emissions from non-point sources in the other 
listed source categories are more dispersed throughout the State and 
are therefore less likely to contribute to high ambient concentrations 
when compared to a point source on a ton-for-ton basis. Based on EPA's 
analysis of the 2017 NEI, EPA proposes that it is appropriate to focus 
the analysis on SO2 emissions from Tennessee's larger point 
sources (i.e., emitting over 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 
in 2019,\24\ the emissions data available in EPA's Emissions Inventory 
System (EIS)),\25\ which are located within the ``urban scale,'' i.e., 
within 50 km of one or more State borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Tennessee's point sources, for the purposes of this action, 
are comprised of all of the following emissions source categories in 
Table 1: ``Fuel Combustion'' categories with the exception of 
residential fuel combustion, the ``Industrial Processes (All 
Categories),'' and ``Waste Disposal.'' Residential fuel combustion 
is considered a nonpoint source and, thus, residential fuel 
combustion data is not included in the point source fuel combustion 
data and related calculations.
    \24\ With respect to EPA's evaluation of sources emitting 
greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019, in the absence of 
special factors, for example the presence of nearby larger sources 
or unusual factors (such as a very high concentration of smaller 
sources), sources emitting less than or equal to 100 tpy 
SO2 can be appropriately presumed to not be contributing 
significantly to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    \25\ EPA's EIS is available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway.

   Table 1--Summary of 2017 NEI SO2 Data for Tennessee by Sector Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                Category                     Emissions       total SO2
                                               (tpy)         emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Generating           24,328.80           52.05
 Units (EGUs) (All Fuel Types)..........
Fuel Combustion: Industrial Boilers/           15,517.78           33.20
 Internal Combustion Engines (All Fuel
 Types).................................
Fuel Combustion: Commercial/                       93.21            0.20
 Institutional (All Fuel Types).........
Fuel Combustion: Residential (All Fuel            131.84            0.28
 Types).................................
Industrial Processes (All Categories)...        3,110.95            6.66
Mobile Sources (All Categories).........         1143.20            1.55
Fires (All Types).......................        1,681.00            3.60
Waste Disposal..........................          726.70            1.55
Solvent Processes.......................            0.97               0
Bulk Gasoline Terminal..................            0.04               0

[[Page 41348]]

 
Miscellaneous (Non-Industrial)..........            3.63            0.01
                                         -------------------------------
    SO2 Emissions Total.................       46,738.12             100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section II, because the physical properties of 
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts near an 
emissions source that drop off with distance, in SO2 
transport analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone. Thus, EPA focused 
its evaluation on Tennessee's point sources of SO2 emissions 
located within approximately 50 km of another State and their potential 
impact on neighboring States.
    EPA's implementation strategy for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS included the flexibility in certain circumstances to characterize 
air quality for stationary sources subject to EPA's Data Requirements 
Rule ``DRR'' via either data collected at ambient air quality monitors 
sited to capture the points of maximum concentration, or air dispersion 
modeling (hereinafter referred to as ``DRR monitors'' or ``DRR 
modeling,'' respectively). EPA's assessment of SO2 emissions 
from Tennessee's point sources located within approximately 50 km of 
another State and their potential impacts on neighboring States (see 
sections III.C.1. and III.C.2. of this rulemaking) and SO2 
air quality data at monitors within 50 km of the Tennessee border (see 
section III.C.3. of this rulemaking) is informed by all available data 
at the time of this proposed rulemaking.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other States' satisfaction 
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS can be informed by similar factors found in this proposed 
rulemaking but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or 
any future rulemaking for Tennessee, depending on available 
information and state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in this section, EPA proposes that an assessment of 
Tennessee's satisfaction of the prong 1 and 2 requirements under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS may be reasonably based upon evaluating the 
downwind impacts via modeling and an assessment of SO2 
emissions from Tennessee's point sources emitting more than 100 tpy of 
SO2 that are located within approximately 50 km of another 
State, other States' point sources emitting more than 100 tpy of 
SO2 that are located within approximately 50 km of 
Tennessee, and upon any Federal regulations and SIP-approved 
regulations affecting SO2 emissions of Tennessee's 
SO2 sources.

C. EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation: Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires States' plans to 
prohibit emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment 
of a NAAQS in another State. TDEC confirms in its submission that, with 
its existing, SIP-approved SO2 emissions controls in place 
in conjunction with Federal pollution control requirements, Tennessee 
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other State 
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. To evaluate 
Tennessee's satisfaction of prong 1, EPA assessed the State's 
implementation plan submission with respect to the following factors: 
(1) potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain 
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring States based on available 
SO2 air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3) SO2 ambient air 
quality for Tennessee and neighboring States; (4) SIP-approved 
Tennessee regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5) 
Federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Tennessee 
sources. EPA has reviewed Tennessee's submission, and where new or more 
current information has become available, EPA is including this 
information as part of the Agency's evaluation of this submission, and 
the discussion with respect to the four factors proceeds in the next 
sections.
    EPA proposes that, based on the information available at the time 
of this rulemaking, these factors, taken together, support Tennessee's 
proposed determination that the State will not contribute significantly 
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another 
State.
1. SO2 Designations Air Dispersion Modeling
(a) State Submission
    In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC summarized existing 
modeling for five sources in Tennessee addressed in different rounds of 
designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS: Eastman Chemical 
Company (Eastman Chemical) facility (Round 1); \27\ and Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA) coal-fired power plants Gallatin (TVA-Gallatin) 
(Round 2), Allen Fossil Plant (TVA-Allen), TVA-Cumberland, and TVA-
Johnsonville (Round 3).\28\ Of these five sources described in the July 
31, 2019, SIP submission, four are located within 50 km of another 
State: Eastman Chemical, TVA-Gallatin, TVA-Allen, and TVA-
Cumberland.\29\ In addition, TDEC characterized SO2 
concentrations for Eastman Chemical, TVA-Gallatin, and TVA-Cumberland 
by extending the modeling domains for these sources into neighboring 
States and noting the modeled maximum 1-hour SO2 
concentrations in the neighboring States.\30\ With respect to TVA-
Gallatin, on September 29, 2020, TDEC submitted a request to 
redesignate Sumner County, Tennessee, from unclassifiable to 
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
(``Sumner County redesignation request'') which included a modeling 
analysis of TVA-Gallatin's SO2 emissions. EPA finalized 
approval of TDEC's Sumner County redesignation

[[Page 41349]]

request on May 25, 2021. See 86 FR 27981. A summary of the existing 
Round 3 modeling for TVA-Allen; TDEC's updated modeling for TVA-
Cumberland included in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission; TDEC's 
modeling to support the Sumner County redesignation request; and TDEC's 
updated transport modeling for the Eastman Chemical facility dated 
November 30, 2021, along with supplemental data that has been reviewed 
as part of the Agency's analysis, is provided in Table 2 of this 
section.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In Round 1 of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
designations, EPA designated a portion of Sullivan County 
``nonattainment'' for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on 
air quality monitoring data. This nonattainment portion of Sullivan 
County encompasses a 3-km radius centered at Eastman Chemical's B-
253 powerhouse, located at 36.5186 N. 82.5350 W.
    \28\ See modeling results for the following Tennessee sources in 
the July 31, 2019, SIP submission: Table 8 on p.17 for Eastman 
Chemical and Table 11 on p.22 for TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, TVA-
Gallatin, and TVA-Johnsonville.
    \29\ TVA-Johnsonville is located approximately 52 km from the 
Kentucky border, and thus, TDEC did not further analyze this source.
    \30\ The receptor grid started at the Tennessee border and ended 
at a distance of 50 km from the source: for Eastman Chemical, the 
grid started at 8 km (the distance to the Tennessee-Virginia border) 
and went 42 km into Virginia (50 km from Eastman Chemical); for TVA-
Gallatin, the grid started at 37 km (the distance from the source to 
Tennessee-Kentucky border) and extended 13 km into Kentucky (50 km 
from TVA-Gallatin); and for TVA-Cumberland, the grid started at 27 
km (the distance from the source to the Tennessee-Kentucky border) 
and extended 23 km into Kentucky (50 km from TVA-Cumberland). TDEC 
relied on the existing 10-km distance used in the TVA-Allen modeling 
because the modeling domain already extended into Arkansas (10-3.5 = 
6.5 km) and Mississippi (10-9 = 1 km) (see page 30 of Tennessee's 
SIP revision). The modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS within the modeled domains.
    \31\ EPA is opting not to rely on the updated modeling TDEC 
included in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission for Eastman Chemical 
or for TVA-Gallatin for this action because more recent, revised 
modeling is available. For Eastman Chemical, EPA is relying on 
revised modeling submitted on November 30, 2021, and for TVA-
Gallatin, EPA is relying upon modeling submitted by TDEC to EPA in 
support of the September 29, 2020, redesignation request for Sumner 
County, Tennessee, from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which is summarized in 
Table 2 of section III.C.1.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TDEC also evaluated existing modeling available for DRR sources in 
other States which are located within 50 km of the Tennessee border: 
\32\ Ascend Performance Materials-Decatur Plant (Ascend) in Alabama (39 
km); Plum Point Energy Station in Arkansas (Plum Point) (2.5 km); and 
Sikeston Power Station (Sikeston) in Missouri (44 km). TDEC states that 
the three modeled DRR sources (Ascend,\33\ Plum Point, and Sikeston) 
demonstrated attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with 
maximum modeled 1-hour SO2 concentrations of 72.0, 14.9, and 
37.2 ppb, respectively.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Table 26 of Section 4.4 on page 35 of TDEC's July 31, 
2019, SIP submission.
    \33\ As explained in section III.C.1.b, EPA previously 
determined that the Agency does not have sufficient information to 
demonstrate whether the area around Ascend meets or does not meet 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area that 
does not meet the standard, and thus designated the area around 
Ascend as unclassifiable. Although EPA does not have any indications 
that there are violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
the area around Ascend, the Agency assessed Ascend in section 
III.C.2.b of this proposed action with respect to interstate 
transport for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. According to 
June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019, emails from ADEM to EPA, Ascend 
ceased operating Boiler #5, Boiler #6 is set to cease operations in 
2020, and Cokers #1 and #2 were set to cease operations in 2021. 
However, EPA notes, as of November 30, 2021, that Boiler #5 and 
Coker #2 were removed from service in 2019 and 2021 respectively and 
Coker #1 and Boiler #6 are still operating under the facility's 
current Title V permit. ADEM's June 6, 2019, and December 2, 2019, 
emails are included in the docket for a separate rulemaking action 
published December 31, 2019 (84 FR 72278) at www.regulations.gov at 
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0792.
    \34\ See Table 27 of Section 4.4 on page 35 of TDEC's July 31, 
2019, SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) EPA Analysis
    EPA evaluated existing SO2 modeling results for three 
SO2 sources in Tennessee within 50 km of the State's border 
(i.e., TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, and TVA-Gallatin), and new modeling 
for Eastman Chemical, to ascertain whether these sources in Tennessee 
may potentially be contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in a downwind state. EPA evaluated the 
modeling analyses provided for TVA-Allen and TVA-Cumberland in 
Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. For TVA-Allen, TDEC analyzed 
existing DRR modeling for this source because the modeling done for 
TVA-Allen for Round 3 of designations had a receptor grid that already 
extended into the neighboring States. For TVA-Cumberland, TDEC 
characterized SO2 concentrations out to 50 km from the 
source.\35\ In addition, EPA evaluated modeling for TVA-Gallatin that 
TDEC provided to support the Sumner County redesignation request, which 
EPA has summarized in Table 2 of this section.\36\ For Eastman 
Chemical, EPA evaluated TDEC's updated SO2 transport 
modeling dated November 30, 2021. Details of the modeling for each of 
these four sources are discussed below and summarized in Table 2. A 
more detailed evaluation of Tennessee's modeling analyses for these 
sources is included in the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD) 
available in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ As discussed in section I.B, Tennessee used air dispersion 
modeling to characterize air quality in the vicinity of certain 
SO2 emitting sources to identify the maximum 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations in ambient air which informed EPA's 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations. The available air 
dispersion modeling, using AERMOD, of certain SO2 sources 
can support interstate transport-related conclusions about whether 
sources in one state are potentially contributing significantly to 
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard in other states. While AERMOD was not 
designed specifically to address interstate transport, the 50-km 
distance that EPA recommends for use with AERMOD aligns with the 
concept that there are localized pollutant impacts of SO2 
near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Thus, EPA 
proposes that the use of AERMOD provides a reliable indication of 
air quality for interstate transport purposes.
    \36\ Due to size and incompatibility with the Federal Docket 
Management System, the supporting modeling files for the Sumner 
County redesignation request (Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0482) 
are available at the EPA Region 4 office for review. To request 
these files, please contact the person listed in the proposed rule 
for the Sumner County redesignation request under the section titled 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for that action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TVA-Allen and TVA-Cumberland are Round 3 DRR sources in Tennessee 
located within 50 km of another state.\37\ In its July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission, TDEC modified the modeling for TVA-Cumberland submitted for 
Round 3 and characterized SO2 concentrations using a 
receptor grid that started at the Tennessee border and ended at a 
distance of 50 km from the source to assess potential impacts in 
Kentucky, whose border is approximately 27 km away from this source. In 
the Round 3 designations modeling, TDEC evaluated whether there were 
any large sources within the modeling domain that needed to be included 
in the modeling to evaluate cumulative impacts. As discussed in the 
Round 3 designations TSD,\38\ TDEC determined that no other large 
sources needed to be included in the modeling. EPA reviewed TDEC's 
modeling and has determined that no large sources are located in 
Kentucky that would interact with the emissions from the Cumberland 
plant to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS across 
the Kentucky border. TDEC's modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS anywhere within the modeled domain, which extends 
into Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The modeling results for Tennessee's DRR-subject sources 
which elected to model for Round 3 designations (TVA-Allen, TVA-
Cumberland, and TVA-Johnsonville) may be found in the initial and 
final Round 3 technical support documents for Tennessee. See 
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Final Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/38-tn-so2-rd3-final.pdf; see also 
Technical Support Document: Chapter 38 Intended Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf. TVA-
Johnsonville is located approximately 52 km from the Kentucky 
border, and thus, TDEC did not extend the modeling domain for this 
DRR source. The original DRR modeling results for TVA-Johnsonville 
show that the highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour 
concentration within the modeling domain is 48.7 ppb. Additionally, 
the SO2 emissions from TVA-Johnsonville decreased from 
17,812 tpy in 2012 to 17 tpy in 2020 due to the retirement and 
shutdown of its coal-fired boilers in 2018. The other DRR-subject 
source in Tennessee, Cargill Corn Milling Company, Inc., accepted a 
federally enforceable emissions limit as its pathway to satisfy the 
DRR.
    \38\ EPA also notes that the SO2 emissions from TVA-
Allen decreased from 9,989 tpy in 2013 to 7 tpy in 2020 due to the 
retirement and shutdown of its three coal-fired boilers in 2018. 
Details about the current emissions from TVA-Allen and Tennessee's 
other DRR sources are provided in TDEC's May 10, 2021, Annual 
Ongoing Data Requirements Rule (DRR) Report. See Tennessee's 2021 
DRR ongoing verification report ``Annual Ongoing Data Requirements 
Rule for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard'' in Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0535 for this proposed 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TVA-Allen is located approximately 3.5 km from Arkansas and 9 km 
from

[[Page 41350]]

Mississippi. Because the 10-km receptor grid for the Round 3 
designations modeling for TVA-Allen already extended into the 
neighboring states of Arkansas and Mississippi, TDEC did not conduct 
supplemental modeling for this source. The modeling results showed no 
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations above the level of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS anywhere in the modeled domain for 
this source.\38\ A summary of the modeling results for TVA-Allen and 
TVA-Cumberland provided in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission is shown 
in Table 2 of this section.
    TVA-Gallatin is a Round 2 source located in Sumner County, 
Tennessee.\39\ In Round 2 of designations, EPA designated Sumner County 
as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its 
entirety because this initial Round 2 modeling for TVA-Gallatin was not 
adequate for designation purposes. In the September 29, 2020, Sumner 
County redesignation request, modeling was performed to characterize 
the SO2 air quality around TVA-Gallatin.\40\ The modeling 
results showed no maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations above 
the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within the 40 x 40 km 
modeling domain. EPA expects that the concentrations would decline 
further from the area of maximum concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ TVA-Gallatin was also subject to the DRR and thus, TDEC 
characterized TVA-Gallatin as a Round 3 DRR source in its July 31, 
2019, SIP submission. TVA-Gallatin chose modeling for its pathway to 
satisfy the DRR requirements.
    \40\ The modeling used the most current version of AERMOD that 
was available at the time the modeling was conducted, version 19191, 
with the most recent three years of actual SO2 emissions 
from the TVA-Gallatin facility (2017-2019) and concurrent 
meteorology data from 2017-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the results of the modeling, there are other factors 
which support EPA's proposed conclusion that TVA-Gallatin is not 
significantly contributing to nonattainment in neighboring Kentucky. 
There are no sources within 50 km of the Kentucky/Tennessee border 
emitting greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in Kentucky or in the 
area between TVA-Gallatin and the Kentucky border based on 2017 NEI 
data. The nearest source in Kentucky that emits greater than 100 tpy of 
SO2 is the TVA-Paradise Fossil Plant, which is located 115 
km from TVA-Gallatin, 68 km from the Tennessee border, and 78 km from 
the Sumner County unclassifiable area. Given the localized range of 
potential 1-hour SO2 emissions as explained in Section II of 
this notice, EPA proposes to determine that there would not be any 
interaction between this source and TVA-Gallatin that would result in 
concentrations which would exceed the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
Additionally, EPA proposes that it is unlikely that SO2 
emissions from TVA-Gallatin travel into Kentucky in higher 
concentrations than what is observed in the modeling domain. As 
indicated in Table 2 of this section, the modeled maximum concentration 
at the state border of 23.1 ppb is well below the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus, EPA proposes that TVA-Gallatin is not 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in a neighboring state.
    Eastman Chemical is a Round 1 source in Tennessee located within 50 
km of another state. Specifically, Eastman Chemical is located in 
Sullivan County, Tennessee, approximately 8 km from the Virginia border 
and approximately 50 km from the borders of Kentucky and North 
Carolina. In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC provided modeling 
for purposes of assessing Eastman Chemical's interstate transport 
impacts on neighboring states. TDEC's November 30, 2021, supplemental 
modeling replaces the modeling analysis TDEC submitted as part of its 
July 31, 2019, SIP submission for Eastman Chemical. TDEC's supplemental 
modeling included receptors extending out to 50 km to assess potential 
impacts in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. For this modeling, 
all SO2 emitting units at Eastman Chemical were modeled 
using their current allowable emission limits from their current Title 
V permits, which are federally enforceable. Section III.C.3.b of this 
notice describes changes being made at Eastman Chemical to further 
reduce SO2 emissions from the facility (e.g., addition of 
Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) controls on two boilers). TDEC's 
supplemental modeling does not account for these additional emissions 
reductions, but instead uses higher allowable emissions rates in their 
current Title V permits. The modeling results showed no maximum 1-hour 
SO2 concentrations above the level of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring states of Virginia, North 
Carolina, and Kentucky. The maximum 1-hour SO2 modeled 
impacts in the neighboring states are: 9.1 ppb in Kentucky, 7.5 ppb in 
North Carolina, and 59.4 ppb in Virginia. Additionally, EPA assessed 
the SO2 sources in the neighboring states of Kentucky, North 
Carolina, and Virginia to determine whether there are large 
SO2 emission sources within 50 km of the Tennessee border 
whose SO2 emissions could interact with Eastman Chemical's 
SO2 emissions in such a way as to contribute significantly 
to nonattainment in Kentucky, Virginia, or North Carolina. This 
assessment concluded that there are no sources within 50 km that emit 
greater than 100 tpy in these neighboring states that needed to be 
assessed in the modeling performed by TDEC. Additional details 
regarding this analysis of sources in neighboring states are provided 
in Section III.C.3.b of this notice. Additional details regarding the 
EPA's evaluation of TDEC's modeling are provided in the Modeling TSD 
available in the docket supporting this proposed action. Considering 
the results of TDEC's modeling, EPA proposes that Eastman Chemical is 
not contributing significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in a neighboring state.
    The following summarizes EPA's assessment of the modeling provided 
by TDEC for the four sources discussed in this section. TDEC's July 31, 
2019, modeling for TVA-Cumberland and existing Round 3 DRR modeling for 
TVA-Allen show that maximum 1-hour modeled SO2 
concentrations at the distances to neighboring states' borders listed 
in Table 2 are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
The modeling results for TVA-Gallatin submitted with the Sumner County 
redesignation request show that maximum 1-hour modeled SO2 
concentration within the modeling domain is well below the level of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and SO2 concentrations are 
expected to continue to decline with distance. EPA has reviewed the 
modeling analyses provided in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission and 
proposes that TDEC's existing and supplemental modeling for TVA-Allen 
and TVA-Cumberland are adequate for assessing interstate transport of 
SO2. Additionally, the modeling for TVA-Gallatin submitted 
with the Sumner County redesignation request and TDEC's supplemental 
modeling for Eastman Chemical, dated November 30, 2021, also provide 
support for this action.\41\ Table 2 provides a summary of the modeling 
results for TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, TVA-Gallatin, and Eastman 
Chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ As noted in footnote 31, EPA is opting not to rely on the 
modeling TDEC included in the July 31, 2019, SIP submission for 
Eastman Chemical or for TVA-Gallatin for this action because 
Tennessee provided more recent modeling.

[[Page 41351]]



                        Table 2--SO2 Modeling for Tennessee Sources TVA-Allen, TVA-Cumberland, TVA-Gallatin, and Eastman Chemical
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Modeled 99th
                                                                                                               percentile daily
                                                              Approximate distance      Other facilities      maximum 1-hour SO2     Model grid extends
               Source                  County in Tennessee       from source to      included in modeling?   concentration at or    into  another state?
                                                               adjacent state (km)                             beyond the state
                                                                                                                 border (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TVA-Allen \42\.....................  Shelby................  3.5 (AR), 9.0 (MS)....  Yes--Nucor Steel       38.2 (AR), 31.3 (MS)   Yes--Southeastern
                                                                                      Memphis facility.      (based on 2012-2014    portions of
                                                                                                             actual emissions).     Crittenden County in
                                                                                                                                    AR; and small
                                                                                                                                    northern portion of
                                                                                                                                    DeSoto County, MS.
TVA-Cumberland \43\................  Stewart...............  27 (KY) \44\..........  No...................  19.7 (KY), (based on   Yes--KY (portions of
                                                                                                             2012-2014 actual       Christian and Trigg
                                                                                                             emissions).            Counties).
TVA-Gallatin.......................  Sumner................  37 (KY)...............  No...................  23.1 (TN) 45 (based    No.
                                                                                                             on 2017-2019 actual
                                                                                                             emissions).
Eastman Chemical...................  Sullivan..............  8 (VA), 50 (NC), 50     Yes--Domtar Paper....  9.1 (KY), 7.5 (NC),    Yes--NC (portion of
                                                              (KY).                                          59.4 (VA), (based on   Mitchell County), VA
                                                                                                             allowable emissions).  (portions of
                                                                                                                                    Bristol, Washington,
                                                                                                                                    Russell, Scott,
                                                                                                                                    Norton, Wise, and
                                                                                                                                    Lee Counties).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also evaluated existing, valid modeling available for sources 
in other states which are located within 50 km of Tennessee to assess 
whether there are emissions from sources in neighboring states to which 
emissions from sources in Tennessee may interact and contribute to an 
air quality problem in the neighboring state. (The sources in Tennessee 
that may be relevant to this analysis are not necessarily the same four 
sources identified in Table 2.) Table 3 provides a summary of the 
modeling for the SO2 sources in neighboring states modeled 
in Rounds 2 and 3 of 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS designations 
(i.e., modeling EPA determined was adequate for purposes of informing 
designations) which are located within 50 km of Tennessee: Plum Point 
in Arkansas and Sikeston in Missouri. The modeling results in Table 3 
show that the maximum 1-hour modeled SO2 concentrations for 
Plum Point and Sikeston are below the level of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The values of 31.3 ppb (MS) and 38.2 ppb (AR) reflect the 
modeling summary for TVA-Allen shown in Table 24 on p. 23 from 
TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. In Round 3 designations, the 
modeled maximum 1-hour SO2 impact of TVA-Allen was 66 
ppb. See EPA's Technical Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended 
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
    \43\ The value of 19.7 ppb reflects the modeling data for TVA-
Cumberland shown in Table 19 on p.29 from TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission. In Round 3 of designations, the modeled maximum 1-hour 
SO2 impact from TVA-Cumberland was 46.5 ppb. See pp.72-73 of EPA's 
Technical Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
    \44\ In Round 3, EPA stated the approximate distance from TVA-
Cumberland as 28 km south of the Kentucky border. See p. 75 of EPA's 
Technical Support Document, Chapter 38: Intended Round 3 Area 
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard for Tennessee, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/39_tn_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
    \45\ This value for the TVA-Gallatin modeling is the maximum 
concentration in the modeling domain, which is solely within 
Tennessee.

                                   Table 3--Other States' Sources With SO2 Modeling Located Within 50 km of Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Modeled 99th
                                                              Approximate distance                             percentile daily
               Source                    County (state)          from source to         Other facilities      maximum 1-hour SO2     Model grid extends
                                                              Tennessee border (km)  included in modeling?   concentration (ppb)    into another state?
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plum Point.........................  Mississippi (AR)......  <5 \1\................  No...................  14.9 (based on PTE)..  Yes--into TN
                                                                                                                                    (portions of
                                                                                                                                    Lauderdale and
                                                                                                                                    Tipton Counties).
Sikeston...........................  Scott (MO)............  44....................  Yes--AECI New Madrid   37.2 (based on 2012-   No.
                                                                                      Plant, Buzzi Unicem    2014 actual
                                                                                      Cape Girardeau,        emissions for all
                                                                                      Havco Wood Products,   facilities except
                                                                                      Noranda Aluminum,      for Noranda
                                                                                      Inc.--New Madrid,2     Aluminum, Inc.--New
                                                                                      Q.C. Corporation.      Madrid 2 which used
                                                                                                             allowable emissions).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Plum Point is 2.5 km to the Tennessee border according to TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
2 Noranda Aluminum, Inc.--New Madrid shut down in March of 2016. The facility reopened in 2018 under a new owner, Magnitude 7 Metals.

    Since the modeling results for Plum Point and Sikeston do not 
demonstrate an air quality problem in these areas as it pertains to the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS, EPA does not believe sources in Tennessee 
are contributing to nonattainment in the neighboring states near these 
emissions sources.
    The following DRR sources in Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, North 
Carolina, and Virginia located within 50 km of the Tennessee border 
were not

[[Page 41352]]

modeled or had modeling that resulted in an unclassifiable designation: 
Alabama's DRR source, TVA--Widows Creek Fossil Plant, located 
approximately 13 km from the Tennessee border, permanently shut down 
and therefore no modeling was done under the DRR. Alabama's DRR source, 
TVA--Colbert Fossil Plant, located approximately 28 km from the 
Tennessee border, accepted federally enforceable permit limits to 
exempt out of the DRR requirements. For Alabama's DRR source, Ascend, 
in Morgan County, Alabama, located approximately 39 km from the 
Tennessee border, EPA previously determined, in Round 3 SO2 
designations, that the Agency did not have sufficient information to 
demonstrate whether the area around Ascend meets the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area that does not meet the 
standard, and thus designated the Morgan County area in Alabama as 
unclassifiable in Round 3. For Kentucky's source, John S. Cooper Power 
Station (Cooper) in Pulaski County, Kentucky, located approximately 43 
km from the Tennessee border, EPA previously determined, in Round 2 
SO2 designations, that the Agency did not have sufficient 
information to demonstrate whether the area around Cooper meets the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or contributes to an area that does 
not meet the standard, and thus designated the Pulaski County area in 
Kentucky as unclassifiable in Round 2. Missouri's DRR sources, 
Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. New Madrid Power Plant (AECI--New 
Madrid), and Magnitude 7 Metals (formerly Noranda Aluminum Inc.--New 
Madrid), both located approximately less than 5 km from the Tennessee 
border, opted to monitor to satisfy the DRR. North Carolina's DRR 
sources, Duke Energy Progress--Steam Electric Plant, and Blue Ridge 
Paper Products (Evergreen Packaging Group)--Canton Mill (Evergreen), 
located approximately 51 and 28 km, respectively, from the Tennessee 
border, opted to monitor to satisfy the DRR and were designated in 
Round 4. Virginia's DRR source, American Electric Power-Clinch River 
Plant, located approximately 36 km from the Tennessee border, accepted 
federally enforceable permit limits to exempt out of the DRR 
requirements.\46\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Each of the sources listed in this paragraph are covered in 
further detail in this notice except TVA -Widows Creek (AL), which 
has permanently shut down, and TVA-Colbert (AL) and American 
Electric Power-Clinch River Plant (VA), which both adopted 
enforceable limits. Additionally, TVA-Colbert reported 2020 
emissions of 1.743 tpy and 2021 emissions of 4.4 tpy, and American 
Electric Power-Clinch River reported emissions of 79.7 tpy in 2020 
and 43.467 tpy in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the above paragraph, two DRR sources in other 
states located within 50 km of Tennessee conducted SO2 
designation modeling; however, EPA previously determined this modeling 
was insufficient to designate areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS. Although EPA does not have any indications that there are 
violations in the areas around these two sources--Ascend \47\ in Morgan 
County, Alabama, and Cooper \48\ in Pulaski County, Kentucky--EPA 
assesses the SO2 emissions from these sources in section 
III.C.2.b. of this notice with respect to interstate transport from 
Tennessee for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Ascend and Cooper 
are located approximately 39 and 43 km, respectively, from the 
Tennessee border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See EPA's initial and final TSDs for Alabama, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/3_al_so2_rd3-final.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/03-al-so2-rd3-final.pdf.
    \48\ Cooper is also considered a DRR source since it met the 
2,000 tpy threshold for inclusion in the DRR. The source chose a 
federally enforceable emission limit to exempt out of the DRR 
requirements. However, EPA had already designated the area as 
unclassifiable in Round 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes that the modeling results for the sources with valid 
modeling (summarized in Tables 2 and 3), weighed along with the other 
factors in this notice, support EPA's proposed conclusion that sources 
in Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
2. SO2 Emissions Analysis
(a) State Submission
    TDEC provided statewide SO2 emissions inventories for 
2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2017 \49\ from the NEI by source category 
(i.e., point, area, on-road mobile, nonroad mobile, and event (fires)), 
as shown in Table 4. TDEC states that the data shows substantial 
declines in the point source, on-road mobile, and nonroad mobile 
SO2 emissions from 2005 to 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For 2017, TDEC provided point source emissions only. This 
data was preliminary at the time of Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission, as EPA had not yet released the final 2017 NEI, which 
was released in April 2020.

                                         Table 4--Tennessee's NEI SO2 Emissions for 2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Mobile  on-
                          Year                                 Point           Area            road       Mobile nonroad       Event        Year totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005....................................................      288,256.16        4,578.11        4,833.88        3,890.82       \1\ 60.01      301,618.99
2008....................................................      258,046.16   \2\ 65,175.82          877.69          590.73        1,210.11      325,900.52
2011....................................................      155,988.36        2,320.98          769.02           85.61        1,158.75      160,322.73
2014....................................................       90,283.03        1,441.94          711.10           61.88        1,702.74       94,200.68
2017 (July 31, 2019, Submission) \3\....................       40,569.61         \4\ N/A         \4\ N/A         \4\ N/A        \5\ None         \4\ N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2005 fires source category is comprised of only wildfires and no prescribed fires.
\2\ With respect to the 2008 area source emissions, TDEC identifies the following factors that could have influenced the reported increase from 2005 to
  2008: (1) in 2008, wildfires in east Tennessee occurred; (2) the reporting requirements for area sources changed in 2008 and EPA made adjustments to
  states' inventories; (3) EPA released version 3 of the NEI to replace version 2; and (4) Source Classification Codes were discontinued after the 2008
  year and that could have affected the emission factors and growth rates. With respect to the change in reporting requirements noted by TDEC, those
  reporting requirements changed in December of 2008. See 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008).
\3\ The 2017 point source emissions data in TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission reflects the data available at the time. See Table 5, below, for 2017
  NEI data.
\4\ ``N/A'' means ``Not Available'' as presented in TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. Since the time of this submission, 2017 emissions data has
  become available for the Area and Mobile Sources (On-Road and Nonroad) Categories. See Table 5, below, for 2017 NEI data.
\5\ The 2017 NEI EVENT source category has no data for wildfires or prescribed fires at the time of SIP development for TDEC's July 31, 2019, SIP
  submission. Since the time of this submission, 2017 data has become available for this source category. See Table 5, below, for 2017 NEI data.


[[Page 41353]]

(b) EPA Analysis
    EPA reviewed the statewide emissions data provided by TDEC and also 
evaluated SO2 emissions data from 1990 to 2017 for Tennessee 
to examine any trends in SO2 emissions over this period. 
Statewide SO2 emissions decreased from approximately 
1,058,622 tons in 1990 to 46,737.72 tons in 2017.\50\ EPA supplemented 
the NEI emissions trends that TDEC included in the July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission when the 2017 NEI was finalized and made publicly available 
in January 2021, and all the source categories are now available. See 
Table 5, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ State annual emissions trends for criteria pollutants of 
Tier 1 emission source categories from 1990 to 2017 are available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.

                                                     Table 5--Tennessee's NEI SO2 Emissions for 2017
                                                             [2017 NEI January 2021 version]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                              Point             Area       Mobile  on-road   Mobile nonroad       Event         Year totals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 NEI (January 2021 version)...................       41,191.44         3,185.61           678.34            40.68         1,641.64        46,737.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to reviewing SO2 emissions trends in 
Tennessee, as discussed in section III.B, EPA also finds that it is 
appropriate to examine the impacts of SO2 emissions from 
stationary sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in 
Tennessee at distances ranging from zero km to 50 km from a neighboring 
state's border. Therefore, in addition to those sources addressed in 
section III.C.1.b. of this notice, EPA also assessed the potential 
impacts of SO2 emissions from stationary sources not subject 
to the DRR that emitted more than 100 tons of SO2 in 2019 
and are located in Tennessee within 50 km of the border. EPA assessed 
this information to evaluate trends in area-wide air quality and to 
evaluate whether the SO2 emissions from these sources could 
interact with SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a 
neighboring state in such a way as to significantly contribute to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. 
Table 6 lists the 10 sources in Tennessee not subject to the DRR that 
emitted greater than 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019 and are located 
within 50 km of the State's border. EPA focused on identifying the 
nearest non-DRR sources to the Tennessee sources as the DRR sources are 
covered under other pathways like modeling, monitoring, or taking an 
enforceable limit. EPA did look to see if a DRR source was the nearest 
SO2 source in a neighboring state and found that in some 
instances, a DRR source was a closer SO2 source. The 
shortest distance between a Tennessee source and the nearest 
neighboring DRR source was approximately 77 km. Additionally, the two 
nearest DRR sources identified were TVA Paradise in Kentucky, which was 
modeled using allowable emissions limits, and Blue Ridge Paper, which 
was characterized by monitoring and later had modeling which showed 
attainment. Both of these sources are adequately characterized through 
the DRR process, and because they are greater than 50 km from any of 
the Tennessee sources listed in Table 6, EPA does not anticipate a 
transport problem/interaction.

                              Table 6--Tennessee Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Neighboring States
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    Approximate
                                                                                                                   distance  to    Nearest neighboring
                                         2021 annual                                                                  nearest       state non-DRR SO2
         Tennessee source \1\           SO2 emissions     Approximate  distance to        Closest  neighboring      neighboring   source (>100 tons SO2)
                                            (tpy)           Tennessee border (km)                 state              state SO2    & 2021 emissions (tpy)
                                                                                                                    source (km)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florim USA, Inc......................       \5\ 153.8  <5 (KY).......................  Kentucky..................           109  CC Metals and Alloys
                                                                                                                                  LLC (348.7).\5\
Nyrstar Clarksville, Inc.............           377.9  14 (KY).......................  Kentucky..................           103  CC Metals and Alloys
                                                                                                                                  LLC (348.7).\5\
Nucor Steel Memphis, Inc.............       \5\ 176.9  <5 (AR), <5 (MS)..............  Arkansas..................            51  Roxul USA Inc. (139.6).
Tate & Lyle, Ingredients Americas LLC           154.4  45 (NC).......................  North Carolina............           153  Tennessee Alloys
                                                                                                                                  Company \2\ (639.6).
Packaging Corporation of America.....           228.9  <5 (MS).......................  Mississippi...............            27  Mississippi Silicon
                                                                                                                                  (503.7).\5\
AGC Industries--Greenland Plant......       \5\ 421.6  11 (VA).......................  Virginia..................           126  SGL Carbon LLC
                                                                                                                                  (54.6).\3\
BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems Inc.             1,052.9  <5 (VA).......................  Virginia..................           122  Eastman Chemical
 Holston Army Ammunition Plant                                                                                                    (3541.9).
 (Holston) \4\.
Resolute Forest Products--Calhoun               328.8  34 (GA), 43 (NC)..............  Georgia...................            95  Tennessee Alloys
 Operations.                                                                                                                      Company \1\ (639.6).
Lucite International Inc.............       \5\ 313.1  9 (AR), 30 (MS)...............  Arkansas..................            46  Roxul USA Inc
                                                                                                                                  (139.6).\6\
Memphis International................           115.7  <5 (MS).......................  Mississippi...............            34  Roxul USA Inc (139.6).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eastman is also a non-DRR source that could have been classified in Table 6; however, the facility is discussed in greater detail below in Section
  III.3.b.
\2\ Tennessee Alloys Company is in Alabama.
\3\ SGL Carbon LLC is in North Carolina.
\4\ See below for a more detailed discussion on BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems Inc. Holston Army Ammunition Plant (Holston).
\5\ Sources have not reported annual 2021 SO2 emissions at the time of publication. The values reported for this source are from 2020.
\6\ Roxul USA Inc is in Mississippi.

    EPA does not have monitoring or modeling data suggesting that any 
of the states of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, or Virginia are impacted by SO2 emissions from the 
Tennessee sources listed in Table 6. Of these 10 sources, three are 
located at or less than 50 km from the nearest source in another state: 
Packaging Corporation of America, Lucite International Inc., and 
Memphis International. As shown in Table 6, the nearest sources in 
neighboring states to these three Tennessee sources are Mississippi 
Silicon and Roxul USA Inc., which

[[Page 41354]]

emitted 647.8 tons and 102.9 tons of SO2 in 2019, 
respectively. EPA proposes that the relatively low SO2 
emissions of the three Tennessee sources, combined with the 
SO2 emissions from the nearest neighboring states' sources 
shown in Table 6, make it unlikely that the SO2 emissions 
from these Tennessee sources could interact with SO2 
emissions from the out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in any other state.
    Of the 10 Tennessee sources in Table 6, seven are located over 50 
km from the nearest source in another state (i.e., Arkansas, Georgia, 
Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia) emitting over 100 tons of 
SO2. EPA proposes that the fact that the distances between 
sources are greater than 50 km, combined with the level of 
SO2 emissions from these Tennessee sources and the nearest 
sources emitting greater than 100 tons of SO2 in the 
neighboring states, makes it unlikely that SO2 emissions 
from these seven sources could interact with SO2 emissions 
from the out-of-state sources in such a way as to contribute 
significantly to nonattainment in those other states.
    One of these seven sources is the Holston military facility, 
located in Hawkins County, Tennessee, less than 5 km from the 
Tennessee-Virginia border. Holston has achieved a 31 percent reduction 
in emissions from the years 2017 to 2020 due to the changes at the 
facility. Holston emitted 1,767.6 tpy SO2 in 2017, 1,621.1 
tpy SO2 in 2018, and 1,389.2 tpy SO2 in 2019. The 
nearest non-DRR SO2 source emitting greater than 100 tpy in 
a nearby state is SGL Carbon LLC, located 122 km away in North 
Carolina. EPA further evaluated Holston due to the magnitude of the 
source's SO2 emissions in 2019 and the proximity of the 
source to the Virginia border (less than 5 km) and its proximity to the 
Sullivan County nonattainment area.\51\ In 2020, Holston's four coal-
fired boilers emitted 1,224 tons of SO2, or nearly all 
SO2 emissions from this facility that year.\52\ EPA received 
a letter dated November 1, 2021, which stated that the last remaining 
unit of the four, coal-fired boiler #2, had ceased operation and was 
last operated on October 4, 2021. Since this time, the Holston facility 
has been operated with new natural gas steam units.\53\ EPA expects a 
large reduction in SO2 emissions due to the fuel switch from 
burning coal to natural gas.\54\ EPA proposes that it is unlikely that 
the SO2 emissions from Holston alone or in combination with 
Eastman will contribute significantly to nonattainment in North 
Carolina based on the reduction of the source's SO2 
emissions from the conversion to natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ On May 31, 2018, BAE SYSTEMS Ordnance Systems, Inc. (BAE) 
submitted an application for a permit to construct and operate an 
expansion of an existing explosives manufacturing operation at the 
Holston Army Ammunition Plant Area B facility located in Hawkins 
County. The proposed expansion is a multi-phase project, and the 
current application covers the first phase only. Phase I will 
include four new natural gas and oil-fired boilers and operations 
for recrystallization, coating, and milling of explosives. Phase I 
will also include the retirement of four existing coal-fired boilers 
(units 37-0028-01, 37-0028-02, 37-0028-03, and 37-0028-04) upon 
startup of the new natural gas-fired steam generating boilers (37-
0028-120, 37-0028-121, 37-0028-122, and 37-0028-123). On October 8, 
2018, TDEC issued a PSD permit (Permit No. 974192) that includes a 
provision that the permittee must notify the State when boilers 37-
0028-01, 02, 03, and 04 have ceased operation. This permit is 
available in the online docket for this action under Docket ID No. 
EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0535 at http://www.regulations.gov.
    \52\ Emissions data obtained using EPA's Emissions Inventory 
System at eis.epa.gov.
    \53\ See the November 2, 2021 email from TDEC to EPA Region 4 
transmitting a letter from BAE regarding Notification of Ceased 
Operation for Boiler #2 at Holston Army Ammunition ``OSI HSAAP 37-
0028-01 to-04 Notification of Ceased Operations.pdf'' located in the 
docket for this action.
    \54\ See ``974192-Final Determination.pdf'' in the docket for 
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also reviewed the location of sources in neighboring states 
emitting more than 100 tpy of SO2 and located within 50 km 
of the Tennessee border (see Table 7). This is because elevated levels 
of SO2, to which SO2 emitted in Tennessee may 
have a downwind impact, are most likely to be found near such sources. 
As with Table 6, EPA looked to see if a DRR source was the nearest 
SO2 source in a neighboring state and found that for the 
sources in Table 7, the sources indicated are the nearest 
SO2 source. There are no DRR sources that are closer than 
the sources indicated in the table.

        Table 7--Neighboring States' Non-DRR SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 TPY Near Tennessee \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Approximate
                                       2021 annual SO2    Approximate     distance to     Tennessee non-DRR SO2
                                          emissions       distance to       nearest      source  (>100 tons SO2)
              Source \2\                    (tons)         Tennessee     Tennessee SO2   & 2021 emissions (tons)
                                                          border (km)     source (km)
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor-Yamato Steel Company (AR)......            348.5              <5              73  Lucite International
                                                                                         Inc. (313.1).
Nucor Steel Arkansas (AR)............            110.3              <5              78  Lucite International
                                                                                         Inc. (313.1).
Nucor Steel Decatur LLC (AL).........            127.2              38             115  Packaging Corporation Of
                                                                                         America (228.9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 7 does not include sources that are duplicative of those in Table 6.
\2\ EPA also reviewed the emissions from DRR sources near the Tennessee border, however, the sources covered in
  this table are the closest sources regardless of being a DRR or non-DRR source.

    As shown in Table 7, the shortest distance between any pair of 
these sources is 73 km. Therefore, given the localized range of 
potential 1-hour SO2 impacts, and the level of emissions 
emitted at these sources, EPA proposes that it is unlikely that 
SO2 emissions from the sources in Alabama and Arkansas could 
interact with SO2 emissions from Tennessee's nearest non-DRR 
sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to nonattainment 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Alabama and Arkansas.
    In addition, EPA evaluated SO2 emissions trends for 
Ascend in Alabama and Cooper in Kentucky, which are within 50 km of the 
Tennessee border and for which EPA could not rely on existing air 
dispersion modeling to assess their impacts for interstate transport 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on other states. Ascend is 
approximately 39 km from the Tennessee border. For Ascend, Table 8 
shows that 2020 SO2 emissions have significantly declined 
below 2012-2019 levels.\55\ EPA also considered whether any changes in 
controls or operations had occurred at Ascend. According to emails from 
Alabama's Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to EPA on June 
6, 2019, and December 2,

[[Page 41355]]

2019, Ascend had ceased operating Boiler #5 and anticipated the 
retirements of Boiler #6 in 2020, and Coker #1 and #2 in 2021.\56\ 
However, EPA notes, as of November 30, 2021, that Boiler #5 and Coker 
#2 were removed from service in 2019 and 2021, respectively and Coker 
#1 and Boiler #6 are still authorized to operate under the facility's 
current Title V permit. EPA also evaluated data in EPA's Air Quality 
System (AQS) \57\ from the SO2 monitors in the surrounding 
area of Ascend. There are no monitors within 50 km of Ascend. The 
closest SO2 monitor is located in Jefferson County, Alabama 
(AQS ID: 01-073-1003) and is approximately 128 km from Ascend. The 
2020-2022 DV for this monitor is 6 ppb. The closest source in Tennessee 
to Ascend which emitted over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019 is 
Packaging Corp. of America, which is approximately 123 km away from 
Ascend and emitted 347.9 tons of SO2 in 2019. The distance 
between Ascend and Packaging Corp. of America exceeds 50 km. EPA 
proposes that the distance between these two sources make it unlikely 
that SO2 emissions from Ascend could interact with 
SO2 emissions from Packaging Corp. of America in such a way 
as to contribute significantly to nonattainment in Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Tennessee's July 31, 2019, submittal for specific data 
on the Ascend facilities.
    \56\ See supra footnote 33.
    \57\ EPA's AQS contains ambient air pollution data collected by 
EPA, state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies. This 
data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                                                          Table 8--Ascend--SO2 Emissions Trends
                                                                          [TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Alabama source                       2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascend..............................................    2,182     2,595     2,839     2,594     2,179     1,628     1,436     1,020       100       771
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also evaluated SO2 emissions trends for Kentucky's 
DRR source, Cooper, which is within 50 km of the Tennessee border 
(approximately 43 km) and for which EPA could not rely on existing 
Round 2 air dispersion modeling to assess its interstate transport 
impacts on other states for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
Available SO2 emissions data from EPA's Air Markets Program 
Data (AMPD) indicates that emissions at Cooper have decreased since 
2012 from 7,428 tons to 47 tons in 2020 as shown in Table 9.\58\ The 
closest source in Tennessee to Cooper which emitted over 100 tpy of 
SO2 in 2020 is TVA Bull Run Fossil Plant (Bull Run) in 
Clinton, Tennessee, which is approximately 116 km away from Cooper and 
emitted approximately 229 tons of SO2 in 2020. EPA proposes 
that the distance between these two sources makes it unlikely that 
SO2 emissions from Cooper could interact with SO2 
emissions from Bull Run in such a way as to contribute significantly to 
nonattainment in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ This data is available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. EPA's 
AMPD is an application that provides both current and historical 
data collected as part of EPA's emissions trading programs.

                                                          Table 9--Cooper--SO2 Emissions Trends
                                                                          [TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Kentucky source                      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019      2020      2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper..............................................    7,428     4,604     4,324     1,804       320       110       148        81        47       165
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis of SO2 emissions trends information, the 
Tennessee sources in Table 6, neighboring states' sources in Table 7, 
and emissions trends data related to Ascend and Cooper in Tables 8 and 
9 support its conclusion that sources in Tennessee will not contribute 
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
in a nearby state.
3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
(a) State Submission
    In its SIP submission, TDEC included a table providing 2015-2017 
and 2016-2018 DVs and annual 99th percentile SO2 
concentrations for monitors in Tennessee and the surrounding states 
(Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia).\59\ TDEC states that all valid 
DVs in the attainment/unclassifiable areas for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Tennessee and surrounding states are attaining 
the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Table 1 of Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) EPA Analysis
    EPA reviewed monitoring data for monitors in Tennessee within 50 km 
of another state and for monitors within 50 km of Tennessee in adjacent 
states using relevant data from EPA's AQS DV reports. The 2010 1-hour 
SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality 
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile 
of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as 
determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. Of the six 
monitors in Tennessee located within 50 km of another state, EPA has 
summarized the DVs based on certified monitoring data in Tables 10 and 
11. Table 10 provides DVs from the 2012-2014 to 2019-2021 DV periods 
for the Blount and Shelby County monitors. Table 11 shows the DVs from 
the four monitors located in the Sullivan County, Tennessee 
nonattainment area. The most recent certified 3-year DV period is 2020-
2022.

[[Page 41356]]



                               Table 10--1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Tennessee Within 50 km of Another State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Approximate
                                                                                                                                             distance to
   County       AQS site code     2012-2014   2013-2015   2014-2016   2015-2017   2017-2018   2017-2019   2018-2020   2019-2021   2020-2022   Tennessee
                                                                                                                                             border (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blount......  47-009-0101......      \1\ ND      \1\ ND      \1\ ND           2           2           1           1           1      \1\ ND           14
Shelby......  47-157-0075......           9           9           8           7           6           4           2           2           2           17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ND indicates that there is no valid DV due to monitor startup or shutdown (operated less than three years), data quality issues, or incomplete data.

    As shown in Table 10, the DVs for the Blount County, Tennessee 
monitor from 2014-2016 to 2019-2021 and the DVs for the Shelby County, 
Tennessee monitor for 2012-2014 to 2020-2022 are well below the level 
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
(c) Analysis of Eastman Chemical in Sullivan County, Tennessee
    There are four AQS monitors in Sullivan County: AQS ID 47-163-6001, 
47-163-6002, 47-163-6003, and 47-163-6004. These monitors do not have 
valid DVs prior to 2017-2019 and are located within 50 km of the 
Tennessee border (i.e., approximately 7, 9, 8, and 9 km, respectively, 
from the nearest interstate border, Tennessee-Virginia). Two of these 
monitors, AQS ID 47-163-6001 and 47-163-6002, have four sets of 
complete DVs (2017-2019 through 2020-2022) and the other two monitors, 
AQS ID 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6004, have two sets of complete DVs 
(2019-2021 through 2020-2022). As seen in Table 11, one of these 
monitors (AQS ID 47-163-6003) violated the NAAQS with a 2019-2021 DV of 
87 ppb.\60\ This monitor is located north of the Eastman Chemical 
facility, in the direction of the Virginia border. It is also 1.3 km 
upwind and in the same wind direction of an attaining monitor in the 
nonattainment area, AQS ID: 47-163-6001, indicating that concentrations 
are below the standard within Tennessee's border. However, with new, 
early certified 2022 data that was submitted to EPA in March 2023 and 
included in the docket of this proposed action, monitor AQS ID 47-163-
6003 is attaining the primary SO2 NAAQS with a DV of 71 ppb. 
In Table 11, a downward trend is also observed among all DVs at 
monitors within 50 km of Eastman Chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See below in section III.A.3.c and III.D.2 for more 
analysis on the gradient decrease between 47-163-6003 and 47-163-
6001 monitors.

                       Table 11--1-Hour SO2 DVs (ppb) for Sullivan County, Tennessee Monitors Within 50 km of the Tennessee Border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Approximate
                                                                        2017-2019   2018-2020   2019-2021   2020-2022     Approximate      distance from
        County (state)              Monitored source        AQS ID         DV          DV          DV          DV         distance  to        Eastman
                                                                                                                          border (km)      Chemical (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan County (TN)..........  Eastman Chemical.......   47-163-6001          79          63          49          41  7 (VA), 49 (NC),              2.5
                                                                                                                        52 \1\ (KY).
Sullivan County (TN)..........  Eastman Chemical.......   47-163-6002          55          38          27          27  9 (VA), 47 (NC),              3.3
                                                                                                                        53 \1\ (KY).
Sullivan County (TN)..........  Eastman Chemical.......   47-163-6003      \2\ ND      \2\ ND          87          71  8 (VA), 48 (NC),              1.2
                                                                                                                        51 \1\ (KY).
Sullivan County (TN)..........  Eastman Chemical.......   47-163-6004      \2\ ND      \2\ ND          53          51  9 (VA), 47 (NC),              1.2
                                                                                                                        51 \1\ (KY).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These distances to the Kentucky border are estimated at just over 50 km and thus, are included for informational purposes.
\2\ ND indicates that the monitors established in Sullivan County (AQS ID: 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6004) to measure SO2 in the areas with modeled maximum
  concentrations around Eastman Chemical officially began collecting data for NAAQS comparison on January 1, 2019, and thus do not have a valid DV for
  2019 and 2020.

    Eastman Chemical is located in Sullivan County, Tennessee, 
approximately 8 km from the Virginia border and approximately 50 km 
from the borders of Kentucky and North Carolina. Given the decreasing 
gradient measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the 47-163-6003 and 47-
163-6001 monitors over 1.3 km, it may be the case that SO2 
emissions from the source would not contribute to nonattainment in 
Virginia, which is several more kilometers beyond the attaining 
monitor. Given that the physical properties of SO2 result in 
relatively localized pollutant impacts, the decreasing gradient 
measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the monitors over only 1.3 km 
indicates that it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from the 
Eastman Chemical facility would contribute to nonattainment in the 
neighboring states that are 8 km-50 km from Eastman Chemical. However, 
considering the data in Table 11, EPA conducted further analysis, 
including an evaluation of design values, an assessment of new modeling 
provided by TDEC that uses Eastman Chemical's current allowable 
emissions limits contained in its Title V permits (see section 
III.C.1.b), and an assessment of both the current actual emissions 
scenario and likely future emissions scenario at Eastman Chemical to 
assess whether Eastman Chemical's SO2 emissions could 
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Kentucky, North Carolina, 
or Virginia. This analysis is discussed in the following paragraphs.
    In Round 1 of SO2 designations, EPA designated as 
nonattainment the portion of Sullivan County contained in a 3-km radius 
circle centered at Eastman Chemical's B-253 powerhouse, which contained 
a single monitor that was violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS based on 2009-2011 air quality data. The SO2 emissions 
at Eastman come from three main boiler groups, B-83, B-253, and B-325. 
Powerhouse B-253 includes five boilers (Boilers 25-29), each with an 
individual stack, that provide steam and electricity to the facility. 
Powerhouse B-325 includes two coal-fired boilers that vent to a single 
stack (Boiler 30 and Boiler 31). Boiler 30 is equipped with a spray 
dryer absorber and electrostatic precipitator to control particulate 
matter and acid gases. Boiler 31 is equipped with a spray dryer 
absorber and fabric filter to control particulate matter and acid

[[Page 41357]]

gases. Powerhouse B-83 includes seven boilers; five coal-fired boilers 
(Boilers 18-22) and two coal-fired boilers (Boilers 23 and 24) that 
also burn hazardous wastewater treatment sludge, venting to a single 
stack.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Prior to September 2021, the emissions from the seven coal-
fired boilers in the B-83 powerhouse were exhausted through two 
stacks, one which served boilers 18-22 and another which served 
boilers 23 and 24. Due to structural deterioration, Eastman 
decommissioned the stack that served boilers 18-22 on September 10, 
2021. Following the decommissioning of the stack, all emissions from 
Boilers 18-24 are now ducted to and emitted from the stack that 
previously only served Boilers 23 and 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Round 1 of designations, Eastman Chemical has converted the 
five B-253 boilers (25-29) from burning coal to natural gas.\62\ This 
conversion reduced the combined SO2 emissions from these 
units by over 99.9 percent (from 14,897 tpy in 2011 to less than 10 tpy 
in 2019). This conversion took place incrementally from 2014-2018 as 
follows: Boiler 25 in March of 2014, Boiler 27 in June of 2016, Boiler 
28 in December of 2016, Boiler 29 in June of 2018, and Boiler 26 in 
September of 2018. The emissions reductions at the B-253 boilers can be 
seen in Table 13, below. Total SO2 emissions at the facility 
from all emissions units have decreased over this time period from 
21,246 tpy in 2012 to 3,542 tpy in 2021, as seen in Table 13, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Eastman's conversion of the five B-253 boilers from coal to 
natural gas was required to meet Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) requirements under the Federal Regional Haze Program. The 
conversion requirement is incorporated into Tennessee's regional 
haze SIP and into the facility's Title V permit. See 77 FR 70689 
(November 27, 2012); Eastman Operating Permit No. 066116H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Eastman Chemical installed temporary dry sorbent 
injection (DSI) controls \63\ on the B-83 powerhouse Boilers 23 and 24 
on June 1, 2019, which have further reduced SO2 emissions, 
as shown in Table 13. The temporary DSI controls were installed as an 
interim measure to address the measured exceedances of the 1-hr 
SO2 NAAQS in 2019, discussed above, and were operated in 
2019-2021 by Eastman while design and installation of permanent DSI 
controls took place. EPA evaluated the effect of the temporary DSI 
controls by comparing the average hourly SO2 emissions from 
Eastman's nine coal-fired boilers at B-83 (boilers 18-24) and B-325 
(boilers 30 and 31) in 2019 prior to installation of the DSI controls 
(January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2019) with the average hourly emissions 
after installation of the controls (June 1, 2019, to December 31, 
2019). The results of this evaluation show that the average hourly 
SO2 emissions decreased from 1,338 pounds per hour (lb/hr) 
(January 1 to May 1) to 793 lb/hr (June 1 to December 31), which is 
approximately a 40 percent reduction in average hourly emissions. 
Eastman completed installation of permanent DSI controls at B-83 
Boilers 23 and 24 in November 2021, and the controls became fully 
operational in January 2022 after performance testing. Tennessee 
continues to work with Eastman Chemical to consider additional 
SO2 controls at the facility. The Andrew Johnson (AQS ID: 
47-163-6003) and Happy Hill (AQS ID: 47-163-6004) ambient 
SO2 monitors continued to measure exceedances of the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in 2020, 2021, and 2022, while the permanent DSI 
control system was under construction. However, as seen in Table 12 
below, the number of NAAQS exceedances have decreased significantly at 
monitors near Eastman Chemical. The other two SO2 monitors 
in the nonattainment area (Ross N. Robinson, AQS ID: 47-163-6001; 
Skyland Drive, AQS ID: 47-163-6002) did not measure any NAAQS 
exceedances during 2019-2022. Additional information and discussion 
about the current attainment status of the area, the NAAQS exceedances 
at these two monitors, and the controls and operational changes Eastman 
is pursuing to bring the area back into attainment with the 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS is provided in the TSD available in the docket for 
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ DSI is a control system that involves injection of a dry 
alkaline material such as a sodium or calcium-based sorbent (i.e., a 
material that absorbs or adsorbs gases) either directly into a coal-
fired boiler or into ducting downstream of where coal is combusted 
and exhaust (flue) gas that reacts with acid gas pollutants (e.g., 
SO2) to form a dry waste product which is then collected 
through a particulate filtration device.

                                    Table 12--Exceedances at Eastman Chemical
                                                     [Days]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Monitor                  AQS ID          2019         2020         2021         2022        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Johnson.................     47-163-6003           18            3            4            0           25
Happy Hill.....................     47-163-6004            2            1            2            2            7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                     Table 13--Eastman Chemical--SO2 Emissions Trends
                                                                 [TPY] [From EPA's EIS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020     2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B-253-1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #25-29.............................   14,171   14,195   12,034   10,638    7,765    4,779    2,367        6        6        7
B-325-1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #30 AND 31.........................    1,363    1,435    1,330    1,306    1,348    1,340    1,371    1,346    1,276    1,208
B-83-1 COAL FIRED BOILERS #18-24..............................    5,549    5,809    6,013    5,879    5,055    4,447    5,274    3,118    1,558    2,296
Total Emissions from all other Emissions Units................      163      160      161      156      156      180      104       40       31       31
Eastman Chemical Total SO2 Emissions..........................   21,246   21,600   19,538   17,978   14,324   10,746    9,116    4,510    2,871    3,542
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also assessed the SO2 sources in the neighboring 
states of Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia to determine whether 
there are large SO2 emission sources within 50 km of the 
Tennessee border whose SO2 emissions could interact with 
Eastman Chemical's SO2 emissions in such a way as to 
contribute significantly to nonattainment in Kentucky, Virginia, or 
North Carolina. EPA identified only one source, located in Virginia, 
which is within 50 km of Eastman Chemical and has SO2 
emissions greater than 100 tpy based on 2017 NEI emissions data. EPA 
accessed more current SO2 emissions for this Virginia 
source, Dominion--Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center, from EPA's 
AMPD.\64\ The source emitted 95 tons of SO2 in 2018 and 69 
tons of SO2 in 2019 and 2020. Based on this more recent 
data, EPA concludes there are no large SO2 emission sources

[[Page 41358]]

in neighboring states within 50 km of Eastman Chemical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ This data is available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) EPA Analysis Continued--Monitors Outside of Tennessee
    No sources in Tennessee elected to establish monitors to 
characterize the air quality around specific sources subject to EPA's 
DRR for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in lieu of modeling. There 
are four DRR monitors located in other states within 50 km of the 
Tennessee border. These four monitors, which are in Missouri and North 
Carolina, do not have valid DVs prior to the 2017-2019 DV time period. 
Thus, EPA identified in Table 14 the 2017-2019 DVs, 2018-2020 DVs, and 
2019-2021 DVs, along with the distance between each source and the 
border of Tennessee.

           Table 14--SO2 Design Value Concentrations (ppb) for Round 4 DRR Monitors in Surrounding States Within 50 km of the Tennessee Border
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Approximate
                                                                                             2017-2019       2018-2020       2019-2021      distance to
              County (state)                  Round 4 monitored source        AQS ID       design value    design value    design value      Tennessee
                                                                                                                                           border  (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Madrid County (MO)....................  Magnitude 7 Metals\1\.......     29-143-9001             202             320             376               3
New Madrid County (MO)....................  Magnitude 7 Metals\1\.......     29-143-9002             268             361             333               3
New Madrid County (MO)....................  Magnitude 7 Metals\1\.......     29-143-9003              47              68              83               4
Haywood County (NC).......................  Blue Ridge Paper Products,       37-087-0013             152              90              36              30
                                             LLC (BRPP).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Noranda Aluminum, Inc.--New Madrid shut down in March of 2016. The facility reopened in 2018 under a new owner, Magnitude 7 Metals.

    EPA evaluated the 2017-2019, 2018-2020, and 2019-2021 DVs at the 
four DRR monitors in Table 14. The New Madrid County, Missouri, monitor 
(AQS ID: 29-143-9001) has a 2017-2019 DV of 202 ppb, a 2018-2020 DV of 
320 ppb, and a 2019-2021 DV of 376 ppb, all of which violate the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The New Madrid County, Missouri, monitor 
(AQS ID: 29-143-9002) has a 2017-2019 DV of 268 ppb, a 2018-2020 DV of 
361 ppb, and a 2019-2021 DV of 333 ppb, all of which violate the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The New Madrid County, Missouri, monitor 
(AQS ID: 29-143-9003) has a 2017-2019 DV of 47 ppb and 2018-2020 DV of 
68, both of which are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS; however, the 2019-2021 DV of 83 ppb violates the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Regarding the violating DVs at the three New 
Madrid County, Missouri, monitors in Table 14, EPA notes that there are 
no SO2 emission sources in Tennessee emitting over 100 tpy 
within 50 km of these monitors based on 2019 data. The nearest 
SO2 source in Tennessee that emitted over 100 tons of 
SO2 in 2019 is located approximately 114 km away from the 
Missouri monitors in Table 14, which is well beyond the 50-km transport 
distance threshold discussed in Section II.\65\ EPA notes a portion of 
New Madrid County surrounding the three New Madrid SO2 
monitors, Magnitude 7 Metals and Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., 
New Madrid Power Plant was designated nonattainment for the 
SO2 1-hour standard in Round 4 designations.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ This Tennessee source, Owens Corning Composite Materials, 
LLC (EIS ID: 3100911), emitted 106.6 tons of SO2 in 2019.
    \66\ See 86 FR 16055 (March 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Haywood County, North Carolina, monitor has a 2017-2019 DV of 
152 ppb, a 2018-2020 DV of 90 ppb, and a 2019-2021 DV of 36 ppb. While 
both the 2017-2019 and 2018-2020 DVs violate the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, the 2019-2021 DV of 36 ppb is below the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.\67\ EPA notes that there are no 
SO2 emission sources in Tennessee emitting over 100 tpy 
within 50 km of the Haywood County, North Carolina, monitor. The 
nearest source in Tennessee that emitted over 100 tons of 
SO2 in 2019 is located approximately 103 km away from the 
Haywood County, North Carolina, monitor, which is well beyond the 50-km 
transport distance threshold discussed in Section II.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ EPA designated Beaverdam Township in Haywood County as 
attainment/unclassifiable in Round 4 designations based on modeling 
of permanent and federally enforceable SO2 emission 
limits for the Blue Ridge Paper Products facility, which provided 
for attainment of the 1-hour standard. See 86 FR 16055. For 
additional information about round 4 designations for Beaverdam 
Township in Haywood County, NC see https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-fourth-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations including the final technical support document for 
North Carolina https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/07-nc-rd4_final_so2_designations_tsd.pdf and the EPA's 
November 24, 2020, final rule approving North Carolina's, source-
specific SIP submittal to make Blue Ridge's modeled SO2 
emission limits permanent. See 85 FR 74884.
    \68\ This Tennessee source, Cemex Construction Materials 
Atlantic, LLC--Knoxville Plant (EIS ID: 4979911), emitted 138.5 tons 
of SO2 in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review of the State's assessment and all available 
monitoring data and related source information, EPA proposes that the 
AQS monitoring data assessed and the lack of any sources emitting over 
100 tons of SO2 in 2019 in Tennessee within 50 km of 
adjacent states' monitors with 2017-2019, 2018-2020, and 2019-2021 DVs 
that violated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS support EPA's 
proposed conclusion that Tennessee will not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the 
neighboring states.
4. SIP-Approved Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions
(a) State Submission
    Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission identifies SIP-approved 
measures which help ensure that SO2 emissions in the State 
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. TDEC states that Tennessee 
Comprehensive Rules and Regulations (TCRR) 1200-03-09.-01, Construction 
Permits, regulates the construction of new sources and modification of 
existing sources, and it highlights section .01(1)(e), which prohibits 
TDEC from issuing a construction permit to construct or modify an air 
contaminant source \69\ if the construction or modification would, 
among other things, interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS 
in a neighboring state. In addition, TDEC also states that TCRR 1200-
03-06.-03, General Non-Process Gaseous Emissions, and 1200-03-07.-07, 
General Provisions and Applicability for Process Gaseous Emissions 
Standards,

[[Page 41359]]

regulate gaseous emissions from non-process and process emission 
sources, respectively. Further, TDEC notes that TCRR 1200-03-13.-01, 
Violation Statement, provides for enforcement action for any failure to 
comply with Tennessee's air regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ ``Air Contaminant Source'' is defined at TCRR 1200-03-02.-
01(1)(b) as ``any and all sources of emission of air contaminants, 
whether privately or publicly owned or operated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) EPA Analysis
    As part of EPA's weight of evidence approach to evaluating 2010 
SO2 transport SIPs, EPA considered Tennessee's SIP-approved 
measures summarized in III.C.4.a. of this notice that address 
SO2 emissions sources in the State. As noted in TDEC's SIP 
revision, the State has a SIP-approved permitting rule--TCRR 1200-03-
09-.01--that applies to major and minor sources generally and prohibits 
TDEC from issuing a construction permit to construct or modify an air 
contaminant source if the construction or modification would interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS in a neighboring state. The 
State also has SIP-approved major new source review (NSR) rules at TCRR 
1200-03-09-.01(4) and -.01(5) covering PSD and nonattainment new source 
review (NNSR) permitting, respectively. PSD applies to the construction 
of any new major stationary source or any major modification at an 
existing major stationary source in an area designated as attainment or 
unclassifiable or not yet designated, and NNSR applies in nonattainment 
areas. Tennessee's SIP-approved permitting rules may help in ensuring 
that SO2 emissions due to construction or modification of 
major and minor sources in Tennessee will not contribute significantly 
to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in neighboring 
states. However, without more information regarding the application of 
the interstate-transport analysis within the state's permitting 
process, EPA cannot form a conclusive position whether this is 
sufficient for approvability of the state's good neighbor SIP submittal 
evaluated here as to new or modifying sources. Further, new source 
permitting requirements do not address emissions from existing 
emissions units. Nonetheless, the EPA finds based on other information 
as discussed in this proposal that Tennessee's SIP submission can be 
approved.
    EPA preliminarily agrees that SIP-approved regulation, TCRR 1200-3-
13-.01, Violation Statement, provides TDEC with authority for 
enforcement of SO2 emission limits and control measures. 
This rule states that, ``Failure to comply with any of the provisions 
of these [air] regulations shall constitute a violation thereof and 
shall subject the person or persons responsible therefore to any and 
all the penalties provided by law.''
5. Federal Regulations Addressing SO2 Emissions in Tennessee
(a) State Submission
    TDEC identified EPA programs which, either directly or indirectly, 
have significantly reduced SO2 emissions in Tennessee. These 
programs include: the Acid Rain Program under title IV of the CAA; the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) SO2 Group 1 Trading 
Program; Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule; Mercury and Air Toxic Standards Rule 
(MATS); \70\ New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); Nonroad Diesel 
Rule; and EPA's Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline 
Sulfur Control Requirements Rule.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
    \71\ https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-control-air-pollution-new-motor-vehicles-tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) EPA Analysis
    EPA is proposing to find that the Federal control measures 
identified in section III.C.5.a of this notice have helped to reduce 
SO2 emissions from various sources in the State. EPA's Acid 
Rain Program set a permanent cap on the total amount of SO2 
that may be emitted by EGUs in the contiguous United States.\72\ CSAPR 
required significant reductions in SO2 emissions from power 
plants in the eastern half of the United States.\73\ MATS required 
reductions of emissions of heavy metals which, as a co-benefit, reduced 
emissions of SO2, and establishes alternative numeric 
emission standards, including SO2 (as an alternate to 
hydrochloric acid).\74\ EPA's Nonroad Diesel Rule will reduce sulfur 
levels from about 3,000 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm when fully 
implemented.\75\ EPA's Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and 
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (Heavy-Duty Diesel 
Rule) required refiners to start producing diesel fuel for use in 
highway vehicles with a sulfur content of no more than 15 ppm as of 
June 1, 2006.\76\ NSPS for various source categories, including but not 
limited to Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units; 
\77\ Sulfuric Acid Plants; \78\ Stationary Gas and Combustion Turbines; 
\79\ Portland Cement Manufacturing; \80\ Electric Utility Steam 
Generating Units (Boilers); \81\ and Onshore Natural Gas Processing for 
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After 
January 20, 1984, and on or Before August 23, 2011,\82\ establish 
standards which reduce SO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See 40 CFR parts 72 through 78.
    \73\ See 40 CFR part 97.610(a)(13). See also 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011).
    \74\ See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 77 FR 9304.
    \75\ See 40 CFR parts 9, 69, 80, 86, 89, 94, 1039, 1048, 1051, 
1065, and 1068. See also 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004).
    \76\ See 40 CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. See also 66 FR 5002 
(January 18, 2001).
    \77\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 63. See also 
77 FR 9304.
    \78\ See 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, D, E, F, G and H. See also 
36 FR 24876 (December 23, 1971).
    \79\ See 40 CFR part 60, subparts GG and KKKK. See also 71 FR 
38482 (July 6, 2006) and 44 FR 52792 (September 10, 1979).
    \80\ See 40 CFR parts 60 and 63. See also 75 FR 54970 (September 
9, 2010).
    \81\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da and 40 CFR part 63. See also 
77 FR 9304.
    \82\ See 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. See also 77 FR 49490 
(August 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the rules listed in section III.C.5.a of this 
notice, EPA's Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Rule 
\83\ also reduces SO2 emissions by establishing gasoline 
sulfur standards that reduce SO2 emissions from certain 
types of mobile sources. EPA proposes that these Federal measures taken 
together have lowered and/or will continue to lower SO2 
emissions, and so are expected to continue to support EPA's proposed 
conclusion that SO2 emissions from Tennessee will not 
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1039, 
1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and 1066. See also 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission, as supplemented on November 30, 2021, by the revised 
modeling for Eastman Chemical, satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's evaluation of Prong 2 of the good 
neighbor provision--Interference with Maintenance of the NAAQS--follows 
and requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with 
maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.

D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation: Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

1. State Submission
    In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC relied upon the 
information provided for prong 1 to demonstrate that emissions within 
Tennessee will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any neighboring state, including: attaining DVs 
for the

[[Page 41360]]

2016-2018 period; SO2 emission reductions trends from 2005-
2014 from the NEI; DRR modeling for large SO2 sources within 
50 km of the State border; and supplemental modeling analyses out to 50 
km for TVA-Gallatin and Eastman Chemical, which tend to show that the 
areas of other states closest to these sources are not exceeding the 
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Also, TDEC indicates 
that there are no monitors located in the nine surrounding states, or 
Tennessee, that are violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
based on valid and complete data for the 2016-2018 monitoring period, 
which TDEC believes is evidence that Tennessee is not interfering with 
any maintenance efforts by neighboring states for this monitoring 
period. Finally, as discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, TDEC 
cited SIP-approved and Federal measures which address SO2 
emissions in Tennessee.
2. EPA Analysis
    In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the 
regulating authority must give prong 2 of the CAA's interstate 
transport provision ``independent significance'' from prong 1 by 
evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, 
even if currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment. 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA 
interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of 
a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, 
but that may have issues maintaining that air quality. Therefore, in 
addition to the analysis presented by Tennessee, EPA has also reviewed 
additional information on SO2 air quality and emission 
trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Tennessee will not 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding 
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), which looked at: 
(1) potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain 
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring states based on available 
SO2 air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2 
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3) SO2 ambient air 
quality for Tennessee and neighboring states, including the analysis of 
Eastman Chemical in Sullivan County, Tennessee; (4) SIP-approved 
Tennessee regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5) 
Federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Tennessee 
sources.
    For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the data discussed in 
section III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a specific focus on 
evaluating emissions trends in Tennessee, analyzing air quality data, 
and assessing how future sources of SO2 are addressed 
through existing SIP-approved and Federal regulations. Based on 2019 
emissions data, there is a continued trend of decreasing statewide 
SO2 emissions within Tennessee. Additionally, there are no 
Tennessee sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019 
within 50 km of adjacent states' monitors with 2017-2019, 2018-2020, 
and 2019-2021 DVs that exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Given the historical trend of overall decreasing 
SO2 emissions from sources within Tennessee, EPA proposes 
that evaluating whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained 
over time is a reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within 
Tennessee do not interfere with its neighboring states' ability to 
maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    With respect to air quality data trends, the 2015-2017 through 
2019-2021 DVs for the Blount County AQS SO2 monitor and the 
2012-2014 through 2019-2021 DVs for the Shelby County AQS 
SO2 monitor in Tennessee within 50 km of another state's 
border are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS, as shown in Table 10 in section III.C.3.b. Additionally, three 
of the four Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee have a 2019-2021 DV 
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The fourth 
monitor is located north of the facility and is 1.3 km directly upwind 
of an attaining monitor in the nonattainment area. Given the decreasing 
gradient measured in the 2019-2021 and 2020-2022 DVs between the 
monitors 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6001, which are only 1.3 km apart, it 
may be the case that SO2 emissions from the source would not 
contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states that are 8 km-50 
km from Eastman Chemical. Tennessee's revised transport modeling for 
Eastman Chemical submitted on November 30, 2021, along with decreasing 
SO2 emissions trends resulting from additional controls at 
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of any large neighboring 
SO2 sources, support EPA's proposed finding that Eastman 
Chemical will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia. 
Further, as shown in Tables 2 and 3, modeling results for sources in 
Tennessee within 50 km of the State border, including Eastman Chemical, 
are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
neighboring states and modeling results for sources in neighboring 
states within 50 km of Tennessee's border show maximum impacts are well 
below level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these 
modeling results, in addition to the lack of additional nearby large 
SO2 sources in the neighboring states within 50 km of the 
Tennessee border, SIP-approved and Federal regulations that have 
reduced SO2 emissions as discussed above, and annual DRR 
reporting for large sources, demonstrate that Tennessee's sources of 
SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
3. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP 
submission, as supplemented by the revised modeling for Eastman 
Chemical on November 30, 2021, satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of 
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the 
following considerations: SO2 emissions statewide from 2005 
to 2014 for all source categories (except the ``Event'' category, which 
includes emissions from fires) and 2005 to 2017 for point sources in 
Tennessee have declined significantly; current Tennessee SIP-approved 
measures and Federal emissions control programs ensure control of 
SO2 emissions from sources within Tennessee; current 2019-
2021 DVs for the AQS SO2 monitors in Blount and Shelby 
Counties Tennessee within 50 km of another state's border with valid 
DVs are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; 
regarding the Sullivan County, Tennessee, monitors, three of the four 
Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee have a 2019-2021 DV below the 
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; regarding Eastman 
Chemical and the Sullivan County monitor which is located north of the 
facility and is 1.3 km directly upwind of an attaining monitor in the 
nonattainment area, so given that the physical properties of 
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts, the 
decreasing gradient measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the monitors 
over only 1.3 km indicates that it is unlikely that SO2 
emissions from the Eastman Chemical facility would contribute to 
nonattainment in the neighboring states that are 8 km-50 km from 
Eastman Chemical; Tennessee's revised transport modeling for Eastman 
Chemical submitted on November 30, 2021, along with decreasing 
SO2 emissions trends resulting from additional controls at 
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of any large

[[Page 41361]]

neighboring SO2 sources, support EPA's proposed finding that 
Eastman Chemical will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia; and 
modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Tennessee's border both within 
the State and located in other states demonstrate that Tennessee's 
largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere 
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another 
state. Based on these factors described above, in addition to the 
analysis provided by Tennessee in its SIP submission and supplemented 
on November 30, 2021, with revised modeling for Eastman Chemical, and 
EPA's prong 1 analysis of the factors described in section III.C and 
III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to find that emission sources within 
Tennessee will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve 
Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. This determination is based 
on EPA's independent evaluation, including as supplemented by the 
revised modeling for Eastman Chemical, as demonstrating that emissions 
from Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
another state.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 
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 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address 
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income 
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. 
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and 
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 
national origin, or income with respect to the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that 
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of 
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the 
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and 
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    TDEC did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP 
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither 
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ 
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the 
nature of the action proposed here, this proposed action is expected to 
have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected 
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed 
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the 
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-13470 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


